Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS AND ELECTRICITY

New Generating Stations

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is satisfied that when the programme for new generating stations is completed sufficient coal will be available for the increased number of stations.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Has an estimate been made of the extra coal which will be required by these undertakings, and, if so, how much will it be?

Mr. Noel-Baker: A great deal depends on how quickly the British Electricity Authority can replace old plant with modern plant, but it is calculated that they will need about 1,500,000 tons more in each of the next few years.

Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether enough coal is

available to keep the existing stations going, thereby reducing the necessity for power cuts?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is not because the present stations have not enough coal that we have power cuts; it is because the demand for current is in excess of the generating capacity of the stations.

Mr. David Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of the acute shortage of man power, appeal to the friends and relatives of hon. Gentlemen opposite to help provide more manpower?

Rural Areas (Co-ordination)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that the necessary co-ordination exists between the electricity and gas authorities in rural areas to ensure that the extensions of either gas o electricity mains are made in the best interests of the district.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The construction of electricity or gas mains for the supply of rural areas is the responsibility of the gas and electricity area boards. If the hon. Member will let me know of any case where unco-ordinated extension has occurred, I will bring the matter to the notice of the area boards concerned.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large expenditure is being incurred in improving existing gas mains in a district of Westmorland, where there is also electricity, while there are many parts of the county which have neither one service nor the other? Is he also aware that when people in the district


put forward a plea to the electricity authority to extend their mains they are always told that the capital expenditure would not be allowed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details.

Advertising (General Policy)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the general policy of advertising by the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While advertisement is in the normal course a matter of commercial management, for which I have no direct responsibility, the hon. Member's Question appears to raise a matter affecting the national interest and the policy of His Majesty's Government and I have, therefore, without creating a precedent inconsistent with the present practice, asked the British Electricity Authority to inform me about their general advertising policy at the present time.
They tell me, first, that, being aware of the loss and inconvenience caused to industry and other users of electricity by the present shortage of generating plant, they wish to assure consumers that they are bringing new plant into commission as quickly as they can. Second, they have accepted responsibility for the widespread national advertising which is required to ensure that householders, office workers and others shall help industry by only using electricity when they must during the hours of peak demand.
Advertising during the winter is concentrated on this problem of peak demand, in order that the frequency and the severity of power cuts may be reduced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Authority informed him, as they have already refused to inform my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), of the cost of the present poster campaign, and, if so, will he give that information to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman say, also, whether the portrayal of the erection of large numbers of new power stations is calculated to increase or decrease public demand for electricity?

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the second part of that question, I think it will have neither one effect nor the other. On the first part, that is another question.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the Minister aware that vast sums appear to be spent on other kinds of advertisements urging people to use electricity—

Sir Richard Acland: By private enterprise?

Mr. Marlowe: No; by the nationalised industry—that people object to having their money spent on urging them to use electricity which at times they cannot get and which, when they can get it, is from only one source?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. The advertisements are designed to encourage people not to use electricity at the peak hours. At non-peak hours, of course, it is desirable that people should use more electricity in order to keep the price down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Flow can the Minister give a full and satisfactory answer on the general policy of this advertising campaign without even ascertaining its cost?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the recent official pronouncement that this year's coal target will not be reached, what steps he is taking to ensure that the domestic consumer will not suffer shortages during the winter.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave last Monday to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key).

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel confident that he will be able to avoid this year, in Birmingham, the distressing scenes of the coke queues and also the very bad quality of the coal supplied?

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I said last week, I hope that the quality will be better. As for the total supply, our present domestic stocks are as high as they were last year, and they are better distributed. What happens in the latter part of the winter will depend largely on the rate of current supplies.

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure that the householders of Sheffield do not get an undue proportion of opencast coal in their allocation this winter.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The House Coal Distribution (Emergency) Scheme and the National Coal Board, in close consultation, decide how the different qualities of coal shall be divided between the regions and then shared out among the different districts in each region. Each merchant is given as wide a choice as may be, having regard to physical conditions, including proximity to the sources of supply. In this way the coal made available to the house coal market is distributed as fairly as practicable throughout the country, and I am confident that these arrangements will ensure that Sheffield does not receive an undue allocation of opencast coal.

Mr. Roberts: If a householder receives unsuitable coal, will he be at liberty to complain to his merchant and have it replaced?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like notice of that Question. Complaint could be made to the merchant, but the merchants are now, I think, fairly well satisfied with the arrangements which have been made.

Capital Investment

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the total sum of capital investment in the mines in 1949; and how much is proposed for the years 1950, 1951 and 1952.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The National Coal Board's investment in their mines in 1949 is shown in Schedule 1 (b) of their published Accounts for that year. Investment in 1950 will be about the same as last year. The sums to be allocated for colliery investment in 1951 and 1952 will, in the normal course of events, be published in the Economic Surveys which the Government issues every year.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the published figures for 1949 and those proposed for 1950 are only about 21 per cent. of the total investment in industry for the country as a whole? Is that—

Mr. Speaker: That is another question. It has nothing to do with this Question.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much is proposed for this year, instead of referring to a document which is not immediately available.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was asked how much was spent in 1949.

Sir H. Williams: How much is the proposed expenditure for 1950?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Thirty-three million pounds.

Miners (Pneumoconiosis)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of deaths in 1949 among miners from pneumoconiosis and the total number due to accident.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance that the number of deaths among miners in 1949 from pneumoconiosis is not known. Four hundred and sixty men were killed in 1949 by accidents in coal mines 10 were killed in metalliferous mines.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a death from pneumoconiosis really means that a man has been killed in the pit? Does he not think that there may be excessive shot-firing to produce coal more easily, and might not this cause excessive pneumoconiosis and also be responsible for some of the dirty coal which we get? What can my right hon. Friend do about it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Every effort is being made to reduce shot-firing, and it is in fact, decreasing. Many other measures are taken to reduce dust in the mines, and great progress has been made.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not rather surprising that towards the end of 1950 the right hon. Gentleman has not got the 1949 figures?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Registrar-General does not keep a separate record of deaths from pneumoconiosis. I have a figure for those who had successfully made claims for pneumoconiosis and who were still alive in 1949.

Fires (Conveyor Belts)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many fires in coalmines have been traced to the use of conveyor belts in the separate years 1940 to 1948.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: During the years 1940 to 1948, 70 underground fires occurred in coal mines as a result of the use of conveyor belts; 56 of them were detected and extinguished before they became serious; 11 occurred during a weekend or holiday period when no one was at work nearby; in only three of them was the safety of men endangered. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the separate figures for each year in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Stross: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made both on research and in the provision of conveyor belts which are not subject to friction of this kind and are not, therefore, likely to cause fires? Will alternative escape routes be provided in the new pits?

Mr. Speaker: The Question asked about the number of fires.
Following are the figures:
1940, 4; 1941, 1; 1942, 4; 1943, 6; 1944, 14; 1945, 10; 1946, 8; 1947, 8; 1948, 15; total, 70.

Opencast Mining, Worcestershire

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he proposes to restrict his trial borings for opencast coalmining in western Worcestershire to the eight sites at Fartown, Stildon, Empire, Winrick, Trial, Gybhouse, Greenway and Gorsthill, named in a reply to a Parliamentary Question on 29th June, 1950.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. If the prospecting on these sites should show that there may be workable coal under nearby land then further borings on that land might be required.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Minister substantiate the statement made on 14th November by a Government spokesman

in another place to the general effect that this coal would be worked only in conditions of grave emergency, and then would be restricted to only 100 acres?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My noble Friend meant, of course, that coal in Worcestershire would only be worked if the nation had grave and urgent need of it. He did not mean that land in Worcestershire would be treated differently from similar land elsewhere, and I am sure that the hon. Member would not ask for that.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he intends to hold the public inquiry in relation to the proposals of his Department for opencast coalmining in western Worcestershire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Before any opencast workings are begun, all the authorities and interests concerned will, as always, have the fullest opportunity to express their views. But no plans for working can be made until the task of prospecting is complete.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that more than 50 public and private bodies have now registered the strongest disapproval of these proposals, and would he, therefore, expedite this public inquiry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is no point in having any consultations until we know what coal there is and whether we want to work it.

Captain Crookshank: The Minister talks about full inquiries being made and consultations, but that is not the same thing as a public inquiry. Will he, therefore, have a public inquiry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Under the procedure which has always been followed, and which, I think, has proved very satisfactory, local authorities, the Regional Controller of Town and Country Planning, the Land Commissioner of the Ministry of Agriculture, other Ministries, the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, and private societies for the preservation of rural England, have always had an opportunity for discussion and consultation of every kind.

Captain Crookshank: Does not the Minister realise that that is not a public inquiry and is not as effective as far as the public are concerned?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not at all afraid of public inquiries. We have never needed one hitherto, and I hope we shall not need one in this case.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many trial bore holes have been put down since 1st August, 1950, in connection with opencast coal-mining prospecting in western Worcestershire; and when the results of these trial borings will be made known.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Nearly 200 holes have been put down. The results cannot be assessed until the full programme of boring has been completed; this will probably be about the end of 1951.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the Minister realise that where boring has taken place on good farmland, farmers are gravely perturbed about their prospects for 1951 and 1952 in planning food production? If he does not intend to work their land for opencast coal during the coming years will he tell the farmers, so that they can get ahead in planning future food supplies?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's proposal, but I hope that farmers will follow the advice of their representative organisations to carry on with their plans in any event until a definite decision has been made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the holes for bores in Westminster are a greater nuisance than they are in Worcestershire?

Stocks

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total amount of distributed stocks of coal, colliery stocks, and opencast coal stocks on sites or in central stocking grounds; and the comparable total for the same date in 1949.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The total distributed stocks of coal at the end of the first week of winter were 15·4 million tons in 1949 they were 16·7 million tons. The undistributed stocks were 1·58 million tons; in 1949 they were 2·78 million tons.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister appreciate that the total supply of coal is now just over two million tons less than at this time last year—that is to say, practically 10 per cent. less—and that in

addition, consumption has gone up by 3 per cent., so that we are starting the winter 13 per cent. worse off?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is giving information and not asking a question.

Mr. P. Roberts: In view of the increasing consumption which is expected, is the Minister satisfied that we shall not run into a fuel crisis in the spring of next year unless further action is taken?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that further action is required, as I said last week.

Opencast Site, Higham

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when the restoration of the land at the opencast site at Higham, near Burnley, will start.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Restoration was started last spring, on part of the West Close site at Higham. When the topsoil can be replaced will depend upon the weather; but I hope that 20 acres will be handed over by next summer to the county agricultural executive committee for the "agricultural treatment" and "farm management" which are required.

Mr. Fort: Why has it not been possible to restore land progressively at Higham, as has been done at other opencast sites, so that farm work can start within 12 months of the first stripping operations?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Restoration would have proceeded much more quickly this year but for the weather. The contractor was afraid that if he put back the topsoil during the persistent and very heavy rain it might have been bad for the land in the long run.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not encouraging to hear the Minister's acknowledgment that there are some things, such as the weather, which even the Government cannot control?

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when farmers and tenants on land adjoining the opencast site at Higham, near Burnley, will be compensated for damage caused by flooding and pollution of the water courses with oil and silt.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If any damage is caused by flooding or oil pollution, compensation is a question to be settled by


the contractors and those who make the claim. I understand that some discussions have taken place about alleged damage of this kind at the Higham site, but, so far as I am aware, they have not been followed by any specific claim.

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what basis the contractors working the opencast site at Higham, near Burnley, are paid for their operations.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The contract provides for a flat rate payment for each ton of coal delivered to my Ministry. The rate includes a payment for the screening of the coal; for crushing it, when that is required; and for the erection of the screening and crushing plants.

Mr. Fort: As there is no inclusion in the contract for payment for coal which has not been won, am I right in assuming that payment is only for coal which has been handed over to the Ministry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Exports

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how far it is anticipated that the contribution of the National Coal Board to the export drive will fall short this year of the contribution which it made last year.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave last Monday to Questions by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key).

Mr. Butcher: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make good this short-fall? Is it to be left to private enterprise?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member's Question asked about the contribution of coal to the export drive. In a very real sense, the whole of our export drive is founded on coal. This year we are exporting more coal in the form of finished manufactured goods.

Opencast Mining, Staffordshire

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why only seven days has been given to the Stone Rural District Council for lodging objections against an opencast project at Handchurch, Staffordshire; and whether he will take steps to

ensure that adequate time is given to local authorities to prepare their objections to any such project.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Only proposals for prospecting for coal are now in contemplation at the Osier Bed site at Hand-church. The Stone Rural District Council will, of course, have ample time and opportunity to lodge their complaints, if and when a proposal to work the coal is made.

Mr. Fraser: Would it not be simpler to give them, initially, more time in which to make preparations rather than to give them only seven days in which to lodge an objection?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It gives them ample time, because it will take a very long time before the prospecting is finished.

Manpower

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will publish the report of the scientific inquiry, conducted by the National Coal Board and forwarded to him, into the reasons why men are leaving the pits; and what steps he proposes to take arising therefrom to maintain manpower in the industry.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The National Coal Board are conducting special inquiries by interviews and other means to ascertain the various reasons which are causing men to leave the mines. These inquiries are still going on, and it would, therefore, be premature for me to say anything about the conclusions to which they may lead.

Mr. Donner: Is the Minister aware that some Socialist miners have admitted to me that the reason why they left the pits was because they could not stand nationalisation at any price, and will he—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: This is quite out of order.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I may reply to the hon. Member, the General Election figures seemed to show that they were very few in number.

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER (PAPER SUPPLIES)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the annual consumption of paper in his Department.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Six hundred and fifty tons of paper were used by my Ministry in 1949. Since then, the consumption has been reduced by the de-rationing of petrol, but I regret that I have no figure for the total amount that will be used this year.

Wing Commander Bullus: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to eliminate waste by duplication, examples of which I have brought to his notice?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having called my attention to the duplicated circulation of a paper about economy in laundries. I have taken steps to see that it shall not be repeated.

LAW OF TREASON

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied that the existing law against treason is adequate in situations in which the British Government is waging war not as a separate unit but as part of the forces of the United Nations Organisation, as in the case of the Korean war; if he is aware that collective war of this kind is now the only sort of war in which this country is likely to be engaged; and if he will amend the law against treason accordingly.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Yes, Sir. In the existing state of international law as laid down by the Pact of Paris, 1928, and the Charter of the United Nations, if armed conflicts occur in the future they are likely, as in the present Korean conflict, to take the form of an attack by one or more States in breach of the Charter of the United Nations and of collective action by other States on behalf of the United Nations with the object of restoring peace and enforcing the rule of international law. In my opinion, the law of treason is as applicable to such a conflict as it was to an ordinary war between State and State.

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the fact that he did not take any action against the "Daily Worker" for appointing a correspondent to the headquarters of our enemies in Korea was not because he lacked power, but because he had no desire to do so?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I have expressed the view on previous occasions that the law of treason applies during the present conflict, but, of course, one has to exercise discretion as to whether or not, in a particular case, to use what is a rather formidable weapon.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole law of treason is out of date and that at present offences are being committed which, although technically treason, do not merit the death sentence? Is it not desirable that the law of treason should be changed so that prosecutions could take place with a view to exacting some other penalty which is less than death?

The Attorney-General: That is a different question, but it is certainly a matter for consideration.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the correspondent to whom reference has been made accused British troops of savagery and American troops of cowardice? Surely there is no question of discretion there.

The Attorney-General: The correspondent is at present not within my jurisdiction.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of any definition of treason which would make it unlawful to publish in this country accounts of such atrocities as were, in fact, committed by Syngman Rhee and some of his assassins?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

DEPOSIT OF WILLS (REGULATIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General why the 1940 regulations for the depository of wills by living persons have been superseded by the reenactment of the 1914 regulations; and whether he will cause the regulations now in force to be examined and simplified on the basis of the 1940 regulations.

The Attorney-General: The 1940 regulations for the deposit of wills by living persons were made as a temporary expedient because of the transfer of the Principal Probate Registry to Llandudno


during the war. On the return of the Registry to London the peace-time procedure was restored. There is no reason why people wishing to deposit wills should not be allowed to do so by post as well as by the methods which are now permitted; the regulations are being amended accordingly, and I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for the suggestion.

PRISONER, WINCHESTER GAOL

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General when Mr. D. J. Corcoran will be released from Winchester Gaol.

The Attorney-General: It is for the court to decide when this prisoner can be released, but I understand that he is making an application which will be heard next Thursday, 23rd November.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why this Question was transferred to him from the Home Secretary and will he answer future Questions on this case, if they become necessary?

The Attorney-General: I think that is a matter for the Table, but it concerns the administration of His 'Majesty's courts of justice and I answer on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in regard to such matters.

CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Sir H. Williams: asked the Attorney-General what legislation will be necessary, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government has signed the Charter of Human Rights.

The Attorney-General: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Convention of Human Rights, recently signed at Rome. It is not contemplated that any legislation will be necessary in order to give effect to the terms of this Convention.

Sir H. Williams: Are we to understand that the Charter has made really no difference as far as this country is concerned?

The Attorney-General: I think we are entitled to say that the law of this country has always been in advance of the laws of most other countries in regard to human rights.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do the Government now intend to withdraw Defence Regulation 58A?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Cattle Slaughtering, Birkenhead

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the conditions in which cattle await slaughter in the Birkenhead district, where in one case 500 cattle were penned in a war-time Army ordnance depot without food and water, in a quagmire of mud six inches deep; and if he will take steps to avoid such unnecessary cruelty in future.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I think the hon. Member refers to land at Leigh, which was used as an ordnance depot during the war but has since been recultivated and returned to agricultural use. Cattle purchased by my Department and awaiting slaughter were kept on this land for some days, but my inquiries show that they were well cared for and properly fed and watered. There was no cruelty. But, if the hon. and gallant Member has evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

Air Commodore Harvey: As there is another side of this story, if I send the right hon. Gentleman details, will he examine them?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir.

Apples

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Food what is the total quantity of apples imported into this country since 16th August last.

Mr. Webb: None, Sir, but, as I told the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 25th October we are expecting shipments of Canadian dessert apples for the Christmas trade shortly.

Mr. G. Williams: Will the Minister give us some idea of the quantity of these apples, because at present the prospect of a large importation of apples in the


New Year is having a depressing effect on the sale of apples by the British farmer?

Mr. Webb: These apples were grown in the Empire, and should be good.

Christmas Allowances

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Food what extras in rationed goods will be given for Christmas week.

Mr. Webb: I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made on 13th November.

Mr. Shurmer: Having read the welcome announcement of my right hon. Friend, which came long after this Question was put down, may I ask whether he can hold out hopes for extra meat and other goods, in view of the fact that the price of poultry will be very high?

Mr. Webb: I dealt with that question at the time.

Sugar

Major H. Johnson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will permit old age pensioners, at their option, to exchange their personal points for an equivalent ration of domestic sugar.

Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), on 13th November.

Major Johnson: In view of this much needed concession, will the right hon. Gentleman consider decreasing the quantity of sugar which his Ministry exports?

Mr. Webb: That is another question.

Potatoes

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the supplies of potatoes available during the winter and in the coming spring.

Mr. Webb: Production is greater this year than last; there should be plenty throughout the winter and, unless there are exceptional losses from disease, we should have enough until the end of the season.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to safeguard the position in case there is disease?

Mr. Webb: Not until I have evidence that there is disease.

Meat Grading Panels

Major Johnson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now appoint to all grading panels representatives of the retail butchers' buying committees.

Mr. Webb: District meat agents, who are practical butchers, already have the right to take part with the slaughterhouse manager and the wholesale depot manager in the grading of home-killed meat. All these men are impartial, and I do not think that anything would be gained by adding a representative of the buying committees.

Major Johnson: Does the Minister realise that the district meat agent is, by the Ministry's rules, not allowed to take part in a retail butcher's business? Does he not think it right that the retail butcher, who has the somewhat invidious job of selling the meat to the public, should have a say in the matter of sale to the public?

Mr. Webb: I do not like to add to bureaucracy. I think the machinery is quite adequate and that the addition to the committee would be most unfortunate.

Dried Eggs

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make supplies of dried eggs available for domestic use.

Mr. Webb: I should like to be able to do this, but there are serious difficulties. Available supplies are bulk-packed in a form suitable only for allocation to trade users, and in any case the amount is only sufficient for them to receive a proportion of the quantities they used before the war.

Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend see that further quantities are imported, broken down into small packages, and given priority to the domestic consumer, rather than to caterers and traders?

Mr. Webb: Only if we get extra dollars for this purpose. The Chancellor has been able to allow some dollars for the amount of dried egg we are getting which goes to caterers directly, but indirectly, in the end, to consumers.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate attention on increasing the supply and improving the freshness of shell eggs, instead of increasing the supply of dried eggs?

Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of getting the same quantity of dried eggs, but in smaller quantities, rather than in bulk, which should not cost more dollars?

Price Controls

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food which items of food have increased in price after removal of price controls. during this year.

Mr. Webb: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 17th November, it will take some time to collect and assemble this information, but as soon as it has been prepared I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Food Shops (Dogs)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the importance of selling clean food to the public, he will take steps to prevent the entrance of dogs into shops which sell food.

Mr. Webb: I agree that dogs should not be allowed in food shops. It is a most unhygienic practice. But I cannot feel that I would have any great success if I tried to stop it by a prohibitive regulation. Here is a problem more likely to be solved by voluntary action and I appeal to the public and the food trade to co-operate in keeping dogs out of their shops.

Sir W. Smithers: If the Minister can find some means, in view of the fact that the Government have 20,000 snoopers, will he also prohibit two-legged dogs as well as four-legged dogs?

Mr. John E. Haire: Does my right hon. Friend's prohibition apply to "hot dogs"?

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep all vermin out of shops?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Professional Institutions

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the valuable work done by the Institute of Traffic

Officers in the United States; and whether he will consider the establishment of such an institute in this country.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I am aware of the work of the Institute of Traffic Engineers in the United States. In this country existing professional institutions include in their activities work of the same kind. It would be for the interested members of the engineering profession to decide whether they wished to establish an institution to deal especially with traffic engineering matters.

Mr. Watkinson: If this were decided, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Ministry would view it with sympathy?

Mr. Barnes: We always encourage any professional organisation or institute that studies traffic matters. As I have indicated, this is primarily for the profession themselves to decide.

Motor Horns

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing legislation to make it a penal offence for a motorist to use a horn.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that the use of the motor horn in built-up areas in Sweden has been banned since 1936 with most beneficial results since, obviously, both motorists and pedestrian become extremely cautious?

Mr. Barnes: I am not aware of that, but I see no reason to depart from our own practice of barring it during certain hours of the night. I am not satisfied that it would add to safety generally if we were to bar the use of the horn altogether.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend consider legislation of a more limited nature to cover a very common practice—the use of the horn as a signal by a motorist when the car is at rest?

Mr. Henry Strauss: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's original answer because I think the proposal in the Question goes too far, may I ask if he will keep himself informed of the practice in foreign countries, where a prohibition or limitation of the use of the horn


has, in fact, been followed by a diminution in the number of accidents?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, I think we should always be prepared to study objectively any arrangements that may be made in other countries, always bearing in mind, of course, that sometimes the conditions here are different.

Accidents, Essex

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to him by the Essex county constabulary for reducing the high rate of accidents on the London Road between Pitsea and Vange; and what action does he propose taking.

Mr. Barnes: None, Sir, but, as a result of discussions between technical officers of my Department and the Essex County Council, a scheme is being prepared for the provision of pedestrian crossings with central refuges in the shopping area at Pitsea Broadway. In addition, a footpath will be constructed near the railway bridge at Pitsea.

Mr. Braine: I am somewhat surprised at the answer, since I understood that representations had been made by the chief constable on this subject, but as obviously they have not, and there were 82 accidents last year—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has not yet asked a question. He has merely said that he was astonished; that is not a question.

Mr. Braine: I humbly beg your pardon, Sir. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of the number of accidents on this short stretch of road, he would treat this matter as one of utmost urgency?

Mr. Barnes: indicated assent.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange that when delegates are next appointed to the Council of Europe the action shall be taken not by announcement but by Motion, as in the case of a Select Committee.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Consultative Assembly will not meet again until August next year. There is, therefore, ample time to consider this question. When the next delegation is selected the suggestion of the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that these delegates were supposed to represent this Chamber, ought not this Chamber to take some part in their appointment, instead of the announcement being made by the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is only putting the same Question in another way.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Exhibition (Duration)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the several limitations on the revenue-raising aspect of the Festival of Britain and the desirability of getting back as much of the taxpayers' money as possible, consideration will be given to continuing the Exhibition at least in 1952.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am ready to consider any reasonable suggestion, but I cannot break faith with those whom I persuaded to lend sites for the Exhibitions and Pleasure Gardens for the Festival of Britain in 1951. No doubt the net burden on taxpayers might be reduced by spreading over a second year of operation the capital costs which have been incurred. On the other hand, we cannot gauge such factors as traffic congestion or the extent of public demand at this stage. I think, therefore, that we must wait and see how things go and how public opinion feels about it.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, owing to severe space limitations, many people will be prevented from seeing the South Bank Exhibition in 1951; and can he, in view of what he has said, give a really sensible reason as to why it should not be continued in 1952?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is force in what my hon. Friend says, and I will bear it in mind.

Air Commodore Harvey: If the right hon. Gentleman should consider extending the Exhibition to 1952, will he consult the House before doing so?

Amusement Equipment

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Lord President of the Council for what types of fun-fair equipment has the expenditure of 30,000 dollars been sanctioned.

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to a reply made on my behalf on 14th October last in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling).

Mr. Llewellyn: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give exact details now? Is he not aware that it is a disgraceful thing that money should be spent on fun-fair equipment and not upon timber for the homes of the people?

Mr. Speaker: That is an imputation which is quite out of order.

Timber Supplies

Mr. Michael Astor: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the total quantity of hard and soft wood so far allocated for use in the Festival of Britain exhibitions in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and on the sea.

Mr. H. Morrison: No controlled hardwoods have been allocated. Up to 31st December, 1950, 750 standards of softwood and 343,000 sq. ft. of plywood will have been allocated to cover all Festival of Britain requirements, other than those in Northern Ireland which are not the responsibility of the Festival of Britain Office. Plywood is now freely available and is no longer subject to allocation.

Sir W. Smithers: How many houses could have been built with that wood?

Mr. Morrison: That is a typical propagandist question.

Sir W. Smithers: But people want houses now.

Travelling Exhibitions

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council why the travelling exhibitions connected with the Festival of Britain are scheduled to visit no important centre north of Dundee.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have already dealt in some detail with the facts which govern the choice of the ports to be visited by the "Campania" in answers given on 19th and 25th April and 1st May. The tour of the land travelling exhibition is limited by the physical difficulties and the high cost of moving an exhibition of this sort over land. It was always essential that the tour should be limited to a compact area, and as a result of the economies imposed earlier this year that area has been made more limited still. A visit to centres north of Dundee is, therefore, completely impracticable.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Lord President aware that the pamphlet issued by the Festival of Britain office states that the task of the Festival of Britain is to display the British contribution to civilisation, both to her own people and to the world, and if that is so why should the whole of the north of Scotland be denied that privilege?

Mr. Morrison: I always admire an hon. Member who speaks up for his constituency, but the last words of that supplementary question are a great exaggeration.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will the Minister point out to the Minister of Transport. who is sitting next to him, all the physical difficulties he talks about, and see that they are improved, so that future travelling exhibitions will be able to cover the Highlands?

Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend is sitting next to me, it is hardly necessary for me to point it out to him.

Mr. Snadden: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a certain constituency. Is he aware that this decision misses out two-thirds of Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry about it, but there are physical difficulties. If, however, the House, having impressed upon me not to spend more money than I can help, now insists upon my spending more money, I shall be much obliged if the House will take a clear line upon it.

TIBET

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make about the situation in Tibet.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have no representative in Tibet and, therefore, no direct source of information about the situation there. We have, however, been informed by the Government of India that they have received reports from their agent in Lhasa which show that the Chinese invasion has not made as much progress as was at first believed. There have been rumours that the Chinese had entered Lhasa, that resistance had ceased and that peace negotiations were in progress. These rumours are quite without foundation.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the hon. Member give an undertaking that, while this unprovoked and naked aggression is continuing against Tibet, we shall not enter into negotiations with the Chinese Communist Government, which is responsible for that invasion?

Mr. Davies: No. Sir; I cannot give an assurance to that effect.

Mr. Eden: Does the Government contemplate seeking any further information or any joint action or representation with the Government of India, or anything of the kind?

Mr. Davies: We are in consultation with the Government of India on this matter and, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a member of the United Nations is endeavouring to put it on the agenda of the General Assembly. Discussions on the matter are taking place in New York at the present time.

Mr. Eden: Will the Foreign Office try to give us further information as soon as they can, because this is a matter of great gravity even if we have not a representative in Lhasa?

Mr. Davies: Certainly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the reason why we have no representative in Tibet the fact that we have never recognised Tibet as an independent sovereign country?

Mr. Davies: Tibet is considered by us an autonomous country under Chinese suzerainty.

Mr. Silverman: That does not really answer the question. There are a great many autonomous territories which are not sovereign States. Is this one of them?

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the grave and urgent issue involved here, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the destruction of the autonomy of Tibet and the subordination of Tibetan foreign policy to that of Peking, following the collapse of Tibetan resistance to Chinese invasion, His Majesty's Government will now declare their opposition to the inclusion of Communist China on the Security Council of the United Nations.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. Donner: Is it proposed to continue to put up with this violation and to encourage Communism everywhere?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir, but we consider that the Chinese Government is the actual Government of China at the present time and all our actions are governed by that.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Will not the hon. Gentleman take every opportunity of impressing upon the Chinese Government that acts of naked aggression of this character cannot but influence the opinion and attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the participation of the Chinese Government in the future activities of the Security Council?

Mr. Davies: The attitude of the free world towards naked aggression is well-known, and has been demonstrated recently in the United Nations.
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Lieut.-Colonel Sir THOMAS MOORE: —To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what suggestion he proposes to submit to the Security Council of the United Nations to deal with the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese Communist forces.

At the end of Questions—

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. In Question No. 69, Sir, reference is made to a matter on which we should like an answer. It occurred to me that the Under-Secretary of State would like to answer it before we proceed further.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

United Nations Commission

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Security Council to what extent the United Nations Interim Commission is permitting the Syngman Rhee administration to exercise authority for civil affairs in that part of North Korea occupied by the United Nations troops.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On 12th October the Interim Committee on Korea advised the Unified Command to assume provisionally all responsibilities for the government and civil administration of those parts of Korea which had not been recognised by the United Nations as being under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Korea at the outbreak of hostilities.

Mr. Dodds: Is my hon. Friend not aware that there are many people, not Communists, who believe that British troops are giving their lives to protect men guilty of savage and senseless brutality? What is the Home Secretary doing about it?

Mr. Davies: I cannot accept the full implications of that statement, and I really do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for what is happening in that part of the world.

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from the British representative at the United Nations about the date when the United Nations Commission on Korea, instituted by the eight-Power resolution on 4th October, will be proceeding to Korea.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what relationship has been defined between the old United Nations Commission on Korea and the new commission recently set up; when the members of the new Commission will arrive in Korea; and whom His Majesty's Government recognises as exercising political as distinct from military authority in Korea in the meanwhile.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The new Commission supersedes the old and assumes its functions. I understand that it will leave Tokyo for Korea on 23rd November.
The Government of the Republic of Korea is recognised by His Majesty's Government as the Government of that part of Korea where the United Nations Temporary Commission was able to observe elections. The responsibility for governing and administering the rest of Korea, occupied by United Nations Forces, is being exercised provisionally by the Unified Command.

Mr. Foot: Can the Under-Secretary say exactly when the Commission will be taking over full authority in North Korea?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. As I have stated, they are expected to arrive, or to leave Tokyo for Korea, on 23rd November, and then the subsequent form of Government and administration will depend upon the recommendations which they make to United Nations.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Under-Secretary say whether it has been made quite clear to the Unified Command—which, one gathers, means General MacArthur—that British troops were sent into Korea to save South Korea from aggression by North Korea, and not to fasten upon North Korea the corrupt and bloodthirsty Government of Syngman Rhee?

Mr. Ernest Davies: I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of that supplementary question. The Unified Command is fully aware of the Security Council resolution by which the situation in Korea is governed.

Prisoners (Treatment)

Mr. Gunter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the widespread atrocities now taking place in Korea.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Government of the Republic of Korea to the representations by His Majesty's Government on the subject of humane treatment of prisoners; and what further action is contemplated.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to a Question on 13th November.
His Majesty's Government have been assured by the Government of the Republic of Korea that all possible steps will


be taken to enforce law and order and to prevent excesses. No further action is contemplated at present.

Operations (Conduct)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Security Council of the United Nations what instructions have been given to the Supreme Commander of the Forces of the United Nations in Korea as to the limits of his advance into North Korea.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The objectives of the United Nations in Korea have been set out in resolutions of the Security Council and of the Assembly. The conduct of operations in Korea has been entrusted to the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea, and it is for him to decide how best to employ United Nations Forces in Korea so as to achieve these objectives.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the fact that General MacArthur has overtly disobeyed his Commander-in-Chief over Formosa, and has had to be publicly rebuked for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—what assurance can His Majesty's Government give that there will be no repetition of that kind of thing?

Mr. Davies: I cannot possibly accept the statement made by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—but as regards the action taken by General MacArthur, he is acting in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council. At present there is a resolution before the Council which affirms that it is the policy of United Nations to hold the Chinese frontier with Korea inviolate, and that they will protect legitimate Chinese and Korean interests in the frontier zone. In view of that, I do not feel there is any need for further action.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, for an hon. Member to make allegations against the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations?

Mr. Speaker: I think I have ruled on this before. Where General MacArthur is acting as our servant I think it possible that we may criticise him, but as a servant of United Nations I think we are not in order in doing so.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) referred to General MacArthur as being rebuked—[HON. MEMBERS: Of course he was."] There is no proof.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the Under-Secretary make the position clear? I certainly understood from his first answer that he was saying that no territorial limitation at all was imposed on General MacArthur, and that as Supreme Commander he is given carte blanche to take whatever steps he thinks fit. It is necessary that we should be clear about this.

Mr. Davies: Nothing that I have said in answer to any Question today could possibly be interpreted in that way. I have endeavoured to make clear that General MacArthur is acting in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the very remarkable successes which General MacArthur has achieved, would not it be best to leave this matter to his discretion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and not to give the impression, as some Left-wing Members of the Labour Party are doing, that we are desperately anxious to appease the Communist régime?

CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the intervention of Chinese troops in North Korea, His Majesty's Government still deem it expedient to maintain full diplomatic relationship with the Government of China.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Government is not in full diplomatic relations with the Central People's Government and the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Astor: Would the Under-Secretary agree that the principle of according diplomatic relations to Communist countries must carry with it certain practical advantages, and must never be accorded merely as a token of appeasement?

Mr. Davies: One assumes that when we have full diplomatic relations we have certain advantages, and one of the differences between the present situation in


China and full diplomatic representation would be that we would have the right of access to the Foreign Minister and other Ministers concerned.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not a fact that we were most anxious to have discussions with the Chinese Government about North Korea and other matters, and that the reason why we have not done so is because we have not, so far, persuaded the United States of America to recognise that Government or to admit it to the Security Council?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir, that is not quite the situation. The situation is that the Chinese Government have not yet made it possible for us to have full diplomatic relations with them.

Mr. Eden: As a matter of interest, has our representative with this Government had any kind of communication with them at any time? Has he met any of their Ministers?

Mr. Davies: The answer is "Yes," but there happens to be a further Question on that very matter later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what is the rank and position of the official of the Chinese Communist Government by whom His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires is normally received; how many such visits have taken place since the said Government was recognised by His Majesty's Government; and upon how many of such occasions an exchange of views has taken place;
(2) whether any diplomatic representative of His Majesty's Government has been received by Marshal Mao Tse-tung or by the Chinese Foreign Minister.

Mr. Ernest Davies: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking has had four interviews with the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Government. Views were exchanged on each of these occasions. In addition, Mr. Hutchison and members of his staff are in constant touch with other officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a variety of subjects. No foreign diplomat has, up to date, been received either by Chairman Mao Tse-tung or by Mr. Chou En-lai until his country has established full diplomatic relations.

Mr. Smithers: In view of the answer to these two questions, does the Minister feel confident that our views are, in fact, passed on to those who control the policy of the Chinese Government?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. Representations have been made on a number of matters and we are satisfied that they have been considered by the Chinese Government.

WAR CRIMES (INVESTIGATIONS)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether investigations into war crimes committed during the last war have now be concluded.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No investigations of this nature are now being undertaken by His Majesty's Government except such as may be necessary for the consideration of requests from other Governments for the surrender of alleged war criminals.

Mr. Astor: In the interests of historical accuracy, would the Under-Secretary like to modify the statement made in the House in 1945 which attached the blame for the Katyn murders in Poland to the Germans, and not the Russians?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. In view of the lapse of time and the circumstances, His Majesty's Government really could not associate themselves with any future inquiries in this matter.

Mr. Astor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are on record as making a statement attaching responsibility for these murders to the Germans, which, in view of the subsequent evidence, is probably extremely inaccurate? Is not this an opportunity to put on record a more accurate statement?

Mr. Davies: That is another question, of which I would like notice.

BRITISH EMBASSIES (ALIEN EMPLOYEES)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to state the number of foreign nationals employed at British embassies and legations; and what security measures are taken before and during the course of their employment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: There are about 2,100 foreign nationals employed at British embassies and legations abroad. They do not have access to any secret or confidential papers and they are permitted to enter confidential offices only under the supervision of a British member of the staff.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that there have been grave allegations in the past and that the situation today is a very difficult one from the security point of view, is the hon. Gentleman saying that no special precautions are taken in these matters?

Mr. Davies: The regulations have been tightened up in recent years and we are not aware of any recent occurrences where confidential papers have come into the hands of non-British nationals.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in his discussions with the Government of Egypt upon the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government regard the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 as still binding on both parties until its expiration, in 1956, in view of the unconditional demand for the withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone, contained in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Egyptian Parliament on 15th November.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent or proposes to send to the demand of the Egyptian Government that the British Army must leave the Suez Canal Zone immediately and that Great Britain must abandon all rights in the Sudan.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make it clear to the Egyptian Government that, in order to safeguard our Imperial interests, the British Government will insist upon the retention of our Forces in the Suez Canal Zone.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend proposes to make at the end of Questions.

FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures he now proposes to take to implement the policy of His Majesty's Government to bring the question of Argentinian and Chilean violation of sovereignty and of prolonged trespass by the establishment of military and other posts on British territory in the Falkland Island Dependencies before the International Court of Justice, in view of the failure of Argentina and Chile to avail themselves of this offer.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I stated on 6th November that the offer of His Majesty's Government to submit this dispute to the International Court will remain open and I gave renewed assurance that His Majesty's Government regard the Falkland Islands Dependencies as British territory. I have at present no further statement to make on the subject.

Mr. Donner: Does not aquiescence in the prolonged violation of British sovereignty only encourage unfriendly Powers to question and flout British interests the world over?

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that; I think the mere fact that we are acting, with restraint in this matter, and not acting in a hot-headed way, may win us support from other countries.

Sir H. Williams: If foreigners came into the constituency of the hon. Member, would he ask the British Council to sling them out?

Mr. Donner: Will the Government consider raising the matter at the Security Council?

NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider proposing to the General Assembly of the United Nations that all newsprint of the free nations shall be pooled, so as to provide reasonable and equal facilities for the newspapers of all its members.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No. Sir.

Sir T. Moore: This is an extraordinary situation. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Britain, which was so prominent in winning the late war, should now go short of newsprint while the very countries we helped to liberate have apparently an abundance? Is there any justification for that?

Mr. Davies: The Question asks whether this matter should be put to the General Assembly of the United Nations. We do not consider that the General Assembly is a suitable body before which this question should be put.

Sir T. Moore: What is the suitable body?

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, which was ratified by the Parliaments of both countries, contains no provisions for modification or revision except by mutual consent. His Majesty's Government have, nevertheless, been willing to discuss the possibility of revision with the Egyptian Government and there have been discussions this summer between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Egyptian Government.
It has always been the desire of His Majesty's Government to settle outstanding differences with Egypt in the spirit of the long tradition of friendship between the two countries, on a basis of equality, and with full respect for the independence and sovereignty of Egypt.
The two Governments have in fact been in contact for many months on defence matters, with the object of removing misunderstandings and difficulties in the spirit I have stated. In these discussions no difference in principle has arisen over the defence of the Middle East in time of war. Both for this reason and in view of our obligations under the Treaty, His Majesty's Government has accordingly continued to give assistance to the Egyptian Government in the training and equipment of their forces.
The needs, however, of our own forces, those of other Commonwealth countries and of other North Atlantic Treaty Powers with whom we have working defence agreements, must and will come

first, but for His Majesty's Government to deny such assistance to Egypt and to certain other countries altogether would be contrary to our Treaty obligations.
The difficulties which have not yet been resolved do not, as I have said, concern action in the event of war, but the question of defence measures in time of peace. The Egpytian Government have stated that they wish all British forces to be withdrawn from the Canal Zone in time of peace.
The principle of common defence measures in time of peace has been accepted by all the Western Powers and is fully compatible with national independence and sovereignty. Other countries in the Middle East are co-operating in this way.
This is not a matter which merely concerns the United Kingdom and Egypt. What is at stake is the safety and independence of other countries also. I can assure them, as I assure the House, that His Majesty's Government have no intention of taking any steps or agreeing to any measures which would leave the Middle East defenceless, or would needlessly prejudice the safety of free and friendly countries in that area and elsewhere.
As regards the Sudan, that country has been the scene of great progress in the political, social and economic field during recent years. It would be tragic if anything were to disturb this. His Majesty's Government's attitude remains the same. It is briefly that the Sudanese should in due course freely decide their own future.
In spite of the difficulties, I do not despair of being able to reconcile differences with Egypt on a friendly and just basis which will take account of the factors I have outlined. The Egyptian Foreign Minister will be visiting London next week, and this I understand will give us an opportunity to talk the matter over further.

Mr. Eden: The 1936 Treaty allows for a revision by mutual consent. As I understand the matter, the Foreign Secretary has been engaged in trying to reach an agreement on such revision. Now that he has not succeeded, I take it that the position of His Majesty's Government is that they rest upon the Treaty of 1936?

Mr. Bevin: We shall not move except by mutual action between the Governments concerned in accordance with the Treaty. We rest on the Treaty until changed by mutual consent.

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged, and I should like to ask one further question. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in Article 16 not only is provision made for modification of the Treaty, but it is specifically laid down that the new Treaty when reached, shall be on the basis of certain Articles of the old Treaty—that is an alliance for mutual defence—and as that is agreed to by every single political party in Egypt is that not an obligation which no country can unilaterally renounce?

Mr. Bevin: That is the view we have taken on that issue.

Mr. Clement Davies: if it is the view of the Government that the maintenance and protection of the Canal as a highway in international trade is a matter of concern to the nations to the east and west of the Canal, have they made it clear to the Egyptian Government?

Mr. Bevin: I think our position has been made perfectly clear ever since the 1936 Treaty was made. It is clearly understood by both sides.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Treaty, which bears the personal signature of the present Prime Minister of Egypt, provides specifically in Article 8 that the presence of the British forces in the canal zone shall not constitute an occupation in any manner and shall not in any way prejudice the sovereign rights of Egypt: and is it not perfectly clear that the Egyptian Government have now decided to drag the Egyptian Treaty into the limelight of publicity in order to mask their internal discord? Is it not also a fact that but for the British Army, the German and Italian Armies would today be in total control of the whole of Egypt?

Mr. Bevin: In these international affairs, whatever the motives of friendly countries may be, I do not think it is a wise thing to call them into question. I have to negotiate with these people, and I have a very big responsibility.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country will welcome his statement that the peoples of the

Sudan will not be left to the tender mercies of the specific rule of Cairo?

Mr. Bevin: The Sudan is a remarkable development, and an example to the world of what may be done in territories with people of that kind. We shall do nothing at all to set it back or leave them to the tender mercies of other people. In addition, the new ordinance carried last year extending self-government to a remarkable extent is working extremely well.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance with regard to the British troops in the Canal area that the recent statement of policy by the Egyptian Government will not upset the plans of His Majesty's Government for the building of reasonable accommodation for British troops and their families?

Mr. Bevin: We shall look after the accommodation.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all sides welcome the statement that the Sudanese will ultimately be given an opportunity of making their free choice; and secondly, may we as an experiment use the United Nations organisation, since this is defence for neutrality, to establish an international organisation at this strategic artery of defence and trade in world affairs?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think there is any need to establish anything else. This development in this discussion is quite natural, and I do not object to it at all. It is quite possible that if it is handled correctly we shall arrive at a solution of this problem.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: If the Egyptian Government persist in their dictatorial attitude, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the stopping of further releases to Egypt of sterling balances?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask hon. Members of this House to be a little careful in their language. The Egyptians have not acted dictatorially. This House sometimes puts up propositions which other people question as being wise. I think I would leave the matter where it is, and let the negotiations go on.

Mr. Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, pending a solution of this matter, it might be as well to stop


the supply of arms, including Centurion tanks, to Egypt, which is proving an unreliable friend, and divert them to more reliable friends in the Middle East?

Mr. Bevin: I see that a number of Questions are down tomorrow to the Minister of Defence, and I will leave the answer to him. We entered into a contract for the tanks, and the Egyptians paid for them. I do not like breaking contracts too easily, and we decided to supply those that have been paid for.

COAL SUPPLIES

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about the supply of coal.
As the House is aware, ever since the war the home demand for coal has been steadily increasing year by year. Inland consumption, excluding house coal, will this year be nearly 22 million tons more than in 1945, and 35 million tons more than in 1938. This is a consequence of full employment; industry is working more double shifts and overtime; there are more workers; and better industrial equipment constantly increases the demand for power per man-hour.
Including house coal, inland consumption this year will be 6 million tons more than it was in 1949. Next year industrial demand for coal will be still further increased by the mounting volume of production.
During last winter the Government instructed the National Coal Board to export as much coal as we could spare. Their purpose was to help in the restoration of our balance of trade, to buy essential food and raw materials, and to aid the recovery of Europe. In the first half of 1950, our exports of coal were higher by 16 per cent. than in the corresponding period of 1949.
Owing to persistent rainfall throughout the summer and autumn, this year's output of opencast coal will fall short, by about three-quarters of a million tons, of the estimates which had been made. Deep-mined output is unlikely to exceed this year the lower of the two figures given in the estimate made in the Economic

Survey. Of the three factors which determine output—attendance, productivity and manpower—attendance has somewhat improved; productivity is still running above last year's level, but not now by so much as in previous years since 1947. Manpower, on the other hand, has fallen and the shortage in certain areas is seriously holding up production. For these reasons output has fallen in recent weeks below the level of the corresponding weeks last year.
As a consequence of these various factors, the distributed stocks of coal, after allowing for the increased quantities in the cellars of domestic consumers which resulted from the summer prices scheme, were, at the end of October, lower by 700,000 tons than had been hoped. The Government have already taken measures to restore the situation. But, in view of what I have said about demand, it is clear that, if the winter were hard, our margin would be narrow. As an insurance against the results of severe weather, they have, therefore, decided on further immediate steps.
With due regard for the essential needs of shipping, they are reducing the coal supplies for bunkers, and for bunker depots overseas. These reductions will be made only for so long as our stock position is in doubt. As a further measure of insurance, the Government have instructed the National Coal Board to buy some coal abroad. This will help the Coal Board to meet our urgent commitments to our foreign customers, and will make provision against possible adverse winter conditions at home.
By these, and other measures, the Government believe that our national industrial effort can be successfully sustained through the coming winter months. But it is clear that, if our home demand continues to increase in the future, as it has done in the past, our output of coal must be increased as well. The Government have, therefore, been considering with the Coal Board what further measures can be taken to increase production during the next few years, that is to say, in the interim period before the Coal Board's National Plan can give its full results. I hope to make a further statement on these measures in due course.
In the meantime, I hope that everyone who uses coal, both in industry and at home, will exercise as much economy as


they can. As I said last week, I am consulting the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers about the measures required to increase production during the coming winter months.

Mr. Eden: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his statement is very serious and the House as a whole would like an early opportunity of discussing it, a day for which can be arranged through the usual channels. At the moment I should like to ask one or two questions which immediately come to one's mind. First of all, how much coal is it intended that we should buy; secondly, where are we proposing to buy it; and, thirdly, how much is it going to cost?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should not like to say what amount of coal we shall buy, and I am not sure that it would help those who have to buy it if I did. It will, however, be a marginal amount, a part of one week's output here. We shall buy it where we find it; I expect some in the United States and I hope some elsewhere.

Mr. Eden: One has to consider very carefully the effect of any statement about buying, and I only ask the Government to consider carefully how much further information they can give us on where it should be bought, and that they will make a statement at the earliest possible moment. It was very difficult to follow parts of the right hon. Gentleman's statement even though he kindly supplied a copy, and I should like to ask him what is the position as regards output here at home. As I understand it, the figure contemplated this year will only be about the same as we were able to win from the coal mines in 1941 with a small labour force, because many miners were at the front, and with much less machinery.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that the amount will be two millions higher than last year. It will be 205 or 204·9 million tons or something like that.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister in his statement said that the Government were taking measures to deal with this situation. As one of the reasons for it is the shortage of manpower, does not the Minister think it preposterous when manpower in the mines is declining that the reservists should be called up and miners allowed to volunteer for the Forces? Does

he not appreciate that calling these men up may help us to win the cold war, but in doing so we very much look like freezing at home?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That question, of course, is under consideration.

Mr. Watkinson: Can we take it that at least industry will be assured this winter of the allocated amounts already promised?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is our intention.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: While the Minister appeals for economy in the use of domestic coal as well as industrial coal, does he appreciate that domestic coal is at a very low level at the moment, and if there is more severe weather he will be inundated with complaints about the already low basis?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The house coal market will receive one million tons more this year than last year. What will be the situation after Christmas will depend on supplies.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Will the Minister consider giving instructions to the National Coal Board, for a voluntary increase, if possible, in the amount of stint at the coal face, coupled with increased wages if necessary, in order to get the extra coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, some three months ago in this House, I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to import coal, in view of the exigencies of the situation, and that, at that time, I was met with a flat denial? Is he also aware that we appreciate the magnificent efforts of the miners—fewer miners than ever, and greater production than ever—and that we believe that, if the development plan is to proceed, we must for a long time in future import coal for the safety of our domestic defence and strategy.

Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister see what coal we can get from South Africa, thereby saving dollars?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir; certainly.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does the Minister recollect that, in the National Coal Board's Report for 1947, they assumed


a demand under the Marshall Plan to dig 220 million tons of deep-mined coal in 1950, and to export 33 million tons?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Those were based on estimates of what the European countries would want to import. I believe it was laid down in these estimates that the United States should send 14 million tons to Europe, but, in fact, they sent only one million tons.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Will my right hon. Friend see that the latest fuel-saving appliances are used in industry and in the housing schemes of local authorities, wherever possible, thereby effecting a saving of coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. There are big economies to be made in the use of domestic house coal by modern appliances. These appliances are being pushed very hard already, and we shall see what more we can do.

Miss Irene Ward: Would the Minister consider circulating with his statement the annual output per year of deep-mined coal since the end of the 1914–18 war; and would he also consider giving some appreciation of what benefits the coal trade might expect from the mechanisation which has been going on since the mines were nationalised? Does he not think it would be very helpful to Members of the House in assessing the present position?

Mr. Noel-Baker: With regard to the first part of the question, I will consider it. Regarding the second part, we are getting 30 million tons more than in 1945, and with less manpower.

Mr. Murray: Can the Minister say when the contracts are likely to be fulfilled, and whether, when they have been fulfilled, we shall be able to manage without buying coal?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These are hypothetical questions; it depends largely on the output of coal here.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Since the right hon. Gentleman last week announced what he called a postponement of some exports of coal, which I take to mean really a reduction, and since he has now announced the importation of foreign coal, can he give an estimate of the deter-

ioration of our foreign exchange position as a result of these two measures?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir; I should not like to do that today. We are going to use some of this coal to meet foreign obligations.

Mr. Drayson: It production is affected by a shortage of coal during the winter, and industrial concerns are prevented from complying with their contracts, will the Minister say whether he will allow them to receive imports of coal directed by the exporter to whom they wish to send their goods?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think the plan we have adopted is better, and we have adopted it because we intend that industry shall be able to carry on.

Mr. Yates: Will the Minister bear in mind that thousands of families were denied the opportunity of obtaining coal in the summer months because they had no storage capacity, and that his statement will be received with great consternation if they cannot have some hope of priority in obtaining supplies in the coming winter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was one of the conditions of the summer prices scheme that merchants should, in winter, give priority to householders who are without stocking space. The merchants' records enable them to do this, and I am sure they will carry out their promise.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The House has become rather tired of hearing optimistic statements about what the Minister is going to do to ease the situation in the future. Can he hold out no hope that this situation is not progressively deteriorating? Is not this a terrible indictment of Government policy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir; not at all. Of course, it is plain that, in conditions of full employment, it is a much harder problem to keep an adequate labour force in the mines than it is when there is mass unemployment. For my part, I prefer the present position to that of pre-war days, when we had 14 per cent. of miners unemployed for 20 years.

Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Nicholson rose—

Sir Arnold Gridley: May I ask the Minister, in regard to these modern domestic appliances that might save fuel,


if he is aware that on very many of them there is a crippling 100 per cent. Purchase Tax; and would the Minister make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer accordingly?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is one of the things we are considering. In fact, 300,000 of them are being sold in a year, and I hope the number may be greatly increased.

Dr. Barnet Stross: is my right hon. Friend not aware that this problem of falling output of coal is being noted in countries other than Britain throughout Europe; does he not agree that the difficulty of manpower is at the coal face rather than elsewhere, and that it is not associated with wages? Will he not give special attention to the difficulties of our technicians at the coal face?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There are many factors in it. I think the total manpower does affect the manpower at the face. Housing is a most important factor, but there are others.

NEW MEMBER

Sir Edward Charles Gurney Boyle, Baronet, for Birmingham, Handsworth, made affirmation required by law.

BILL PRESENTED

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

"to make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property against the coming to an end of long leases, and for the renewal of tenancies of shops; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison; supported by Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ede, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Harold Wilson and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley, Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the Title of this Bill indicates, it is to make better provision in regard to pensions arrangements of His Majesty's judges and certain other judicial officers. Perhaps I should say at the very outset in regard to the scope of the Bill that, as at present drafted, it applies to His Majesty's judges of all ranks in the United Kingdom and to the other judicial officers, including stipendiary magistrates, who are more particularly described in the Schedule to the Bill.
I should, perhaps, indicate that, by a clerical oversight, the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was omitted from the back of the Bill, but it is nevertheless supported by him and by the Secretary of State in regard to its application to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should say this in regard to those two parts of the United Kingdom, that some of His Majesty's judges in Scotland and some of those in Ireland have raised questions about the Bill, not so much concerning their own position or the position of existing office holders, but in regard to the position of those who may be appointed hereafter.
We shall have to give careful thought to those matters on the Committee stage, and we shall have to see what is the right solution of the points which they raise. I mention it now merely because I was indicating that the Bill as at present drafted applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. If it turns out that in Northern Ireland or in Scotland there are considerations which lead the judges to take a different view from that taken by the judges in England, we must give full consideration to that matter in deciding what course to take.
That being the position, the Bill applies to a variety of persons receiving a variety of salaries, but all of them sharing two things in common. In the first place, they all occupy judicial offices in the discharge of which—and this, of course, goes quite


without saying—they must be, and they are, completely independent and immune from financial and other influences. I say that goes without saying, but it is ensured nowadays, I think, by the great tradition and by the high personal integrity of the office holders rather than by the financial emoluments which they receive.
In the second place—and this also is something that all those affected by the Bill share in common—whilst they all enjoy certain pension rights on their own retirement, for none of them is any special provision made in respect of their widows or children after their death whether they die whilst they are still holding their various offices or whether they die after retirement. That is, of course, a factor that adds to the financial anxieties of those concerned, and which must, I think, as time goes on—as the recruitment of judges has increasingly to be made from generations who in modern conditions have not had that opportunity of accumulating substantial savings out of their earnings which was enjoyed by busy practitioners in days gone by—consequently act as a certain deterrent, an increasing deterrent in the future, to those who otherwise would be the best qualified to be appointed to the Bench.
This Bill, consequently, has a twofold purpose. Firstly, it effects—and this it does without any additional cost to the State—a readjustment of the present arrangements in regard to the pensions in a manner which, whilst it is optional to the present judges to accept—they can opt out of the scheme if they are so advised —is, we think, likely in the changed circumstances of modern life to be more convenient and appropriate, at any rate for a considerable majority of them. Secondly, it provides—and this it does on the basis of a more or less fifty-fifty contribution by the State, on the one hand, and the judges and judicial officers on the other—a scheme for the provision of pensions for judges' widows and children.
That being the general scope and purpose of the Bill, there are just two other points which, perhaps, I should mention before I go into any detail—and my detail will in any event be short—about the actual machinery which the Bill sets up. The first point is this. This Bill does not deal with and is entirely without prejudice

to the question of judicial salaries. On that matter, on the one occasion in the year on which I can speak without attracting the doctrine of collective responsibility or involving my ministerial colleagues in any way—namely, when I address the Annual General Meeting of the Bar as head of the Bar, I did some years ago express my own personal view.
But whilst I personally would like—as I am sure many of us would like—to see some of these judicial salaries raised. I should also like—again, as I am sure many of us would like—to see the earnings of many thousands of lower paid citizens also raised above their minimum figures. Unfortunately, the financial circumstances of the country are still such that great restraint has to be shown, and sometimes even hardship suffered, by people in all walks of life.
I only advert to that matter now in order to emphasise—and it is fair, so far as His Majesty's judges are concerned, to emphasise—that this Bill is not the result of any bargain or compromise with the judges, that we are giving this instead of something else, or any arrangements of that kind. Many of the judges do, in fact, ardently desire this Bill. Those who do not of the present office holders will be able to opt out of it, but the argument in favour of the Bill is one quite unconnected with the question of salaries, and is not the result of any kind of bargain or arrangement with His Majesty's judges. That was the first point I wanted to make quite clear.
The other point, which I might mention in passing, is that this Bill does not provide for the judges' clerks. Under the existing law, the judges' clerks do not receive any pensions at all for themselves and still less for their widows or children. In the last day or two I have received representations from the judges' clerks in regard to the matter. That problem is one which is outside the scope of the present Bill, and I can only say in regard to it that I shall pass those representations on with my personal sympathy—though my personal sympathy may not be worth very much—to the appropriate quarter.
I say I shall pass the representations on with my personal sympathy, because I know that when a barrister becomes a judge and his clerk goes with him, the clerk is invariably involved in a financial


sacrifice, and sometimes quite a considerable financial sacrifice. I know, too, how very valuable the services of the judges' clerks are both to the judges and to the Bar in the general arrangement of the way of the courts.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say why the Clerks of Assize are not in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: I think the Clerks of Assize are in the Bill. The whole list is set out in the First Schedule.

Mr. Hale: I beg my right hon. and learned Friend's pardon. They are in the Bill under the registrars, a funny place to find them.

The Attorney-General: They are, at all events, covered by the principle of the scheme.
Having said that about those two preliminary matters, may I turn quite shortly to the actual details of the Bill, and, firstly, to the elect of the Bill on the pensions paid on retirement. That is dealt with by the first two Clauses of the Bill, and, broadly, these two Clauses alter the type of pension which is paid from an annuity only an annuity of a smaller amount plus a lump sum on retirement, or to what is called a death gratuity in the event of death while still serving in the particular office. The short effect of that is that the existing pension rate is reduced by one-quarter and, by way of return or set-off against that, there is a lump sum payment.
But the general position with regard to pensions in these cases, at present, is that the maximum pension is two-thirds of the salary on retirement. Under the Bill, that two-thirds is cut down to one-half. If any hon. Members share my philosophic doubts about the science of arithmetic, I am instructed—and I certainly could not have worked out this by myself—that the difference between two-thirds and one-half is one-sixth, but that, of course, is one-sixth of the salary, and that is the same as one-quarter—

Mr. Leslie Hale: My right hon. and learned Friend is wrongly instructed. It is certainly one-quarter.

The Attorney-General: It is one-quarter of the pension of two-thirds of

the salary. I hope that is right, but I certainly will not undertake to argue it with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale).
The lump sum, under Clause 2 of the Bill, which can be regarded as a quid pro quo for the reduction in the annuity, will equal twice the amount of the reduced annual pension. Perhaps I should add, with regard to that lump sum, that, in conformity with the general law, it will not attract tax.
I mention, in passing, a point which may have been noticed by some hon. Members, that some provisions of the Bill appear to be mandatory in form and some are discretionary. The provision which says the pension is to be cut down is mandatory. The further provision which says that a pension will be paid is discretionary. That is technical, but one of the reasons for it—and I do not think it has been appreciated by all of His Majesty's judges who have noticed the point—is that it results in an important concession with regard not to Income Tax but to estate duties and, therefore, the arrangement is entirely in the interests of those to whom payments have to be made.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Attorney-General said the lump sum was twice the annual amount of the reduced pension. Is he quite certain about that?

The Attorney-General: Yes, that is certainly my reading of the scheme. A county court judge, for instance, is now paid a salary of £2,000 a year and has a pension at the end of 15 years of £1,333. If he retires earlier, through ill-health, there is a proportionate reduction. That pension will be reduced to £1,000 and the lump sum that he will receive on retirement will be £2,000. I think that is right. That is the general principle, but, as I have said, if he retires earlier, or if any of these judicial officers retire earlier, the pension and lump sum will be proportionately less.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the same principle apply to sheriffs or sheriffs substitute in Scotland?

The Attorney-General: Yes, the same principle applies, throughout the Bill, to all judicial officers affected by it. Up to that point in the new arrangements, the change makes no difference actuarially either in the cost to the State or in the


benefit to the judges as a whole. It may make a difference to individual judges. Some with wife and children will be better off. Others may not be so well off as before, but actuarially, the position with regard to the judges and others is that there is really no difference; and whether it is advantageous or not in a particular case depends upon the circumstances of that particular case.
Existing office holders are given the option, under Clause 11, I think, of opting out of the scheme if they think the existing arrangements are more beneficial to them than the new ones that are to be brought into effect. The new arrangements are to apply to all appointed after the Bill comes into operation, but those appointed now, on the basis of existing terms, will be free to choose whether they go on as before or come into the new scheme. That is the first part of the Bill.
The main purpose and object of the change which is brought in by the first two Clauses of the Bill is to make it possible for the married man to make some provision for his wife and children in the case of his death. That is provided for by a contributory scheme which is established under Clauses 3 to 8 of the Bill. The contribution—and it will work out in a way throwing about half the total cost of the scheme upon the judges and half on the State—consists in forgoing part of the lump sum which would otherwise be paid. Here, broadly, the position is that the amount of this contribution will equal the amount of the annual pension save, I think, in the case where the judge's wife predeceased her husband while he was still holding his office, in which case there will be a proportionate reduction in the contribution.
The benefits, on the other hand, will be again, broadly, a pension to the widow of one-third the amount her husband would have had if he had lived and, in the case of children, a pension of one-sixth of what would have been the father's pension if there is only one child, rising to a maximum of one-third of what would have been the father's pension if there are three, or more, children.
Applying that, again, to the case of the county court judge, his lump sum on retirement would be reduced to £1,000.

In return his widow would receive, during her widowhood, £330 and, if there were also children, there would be a further addition to a maximum of another £330 if, in that case, there were four children or more. There, again, the question whether the scheme is advantageous or not depends, of course, on the circumstances of the particular judge or officer concerned. One with many children would get greater benefits than one with none, but there again, the existing office holders are given an option in regard to the matter.
Speaking, at all events, for the judges in England, both of the county court and of the High Court, there is no doubt that many of them do urgently desire that this provision should be made. Those who do not are free to opt out of it.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: May I ask what is meant by Clause 4 (2), line 36:
The widow's pension shall determine on her death or remarriage …"?
Surely it means "terminate"?

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): It means the same thing.

The Attorney-General: That is one of the ways in which legal drafting is made a little more difficult for us to understand. It means the same. It is a matter of conforming with drafting tradition, but I shall come to another point in this connection which did a little surprise me, though I shall leave it at the moment.
With regard to the option which existing office holders possess, even if they take advantage of the first part of the scheme in regard to lump sum payments, they are entitled to opt out of the second part of the scheme with regard to the widows' and children's pensions. Future holders of the office, on the other hand, will be bound, although if they have not been married at any time during their service they will not need to make any contribution out of their lump sum in respect of widows' or children's pensions. If they have been married but the wife has died earlier, before their own retirement, they will make a proportionate contribution because, of course, the fund will have been at risk during the period when the wife was living and, in addition, there may have been children to be provided for.
There will be no benefit in the case of marriage or re-marriage after retirement, nor in the case of a widow who re-marries, unless the second marriage comes to an end, in which case the Treasury will have a discretion as to what they should do about it. Nor, as Clause 5 (3) puts it, will there be any provision if a child is "conceived" by a father after retirement. Here I confess I was a little surprised by the drafting. I had always thought that the expression was "begotten" and that conception by a male person was physiologically unlikely, but I am assured that this is the correct drafting and I have no doubt that at all events the purpose of the provision will be fairly clear.
That, then is the.purpose of the Bill. I should tell the House that, while the first part of the scheme—the substitution of a reduced annuity plus a lump sum for a larger annuity without a lump sum—will involve no cost to the State, the second part is estimated to cost from £10,000 a year at the beginning of the operation of the scheme to a maximum of about £40,000 a year after the scheme has been in operation for something over 30 years. From that, one can see, actuarially speaking, that the judges as a whole, whatever may be the position in regard to particular individuals, will benefit in the long run to the extent of an additional contribution towards their pensions of as much as £40,000 in a year.
These are the substantial provisions of the Bill and I think, perhaps, I need add only this: it should not be thought that by this Bill we are introducing any new policy or principle in favour of the judges which has not previously been recognised in the favour of others. There is, of course, no relationship between the status, on the one hand, of His Majesty's judges and the other judicial officers who are affected by this Bill, occupying as they do a position of complete independence, complete separation from the Executive and, on the other hand, civil servants; nor would I wish to draw too close an analogy between the principles upon which judges and civil servants are remunerated; but the fact is that the principles of this Bill in relation to the lump sum payment and the widows' and children's allowances are closely similar to those which were embodied in a series of Acts, ending with the Superannuation Act of 1949, in regard to the Civil Service.
I hope that the House will think that the arrangements proposed by this Bill will be beneficial to judges as a whole and of a kind which it is in the public interest that this House should adopt.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): The House has not had very much time to appreciate the full effect of this somewhat complicated Measure, and I am sure hon. Members on all sides are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation which he has given this afternoon. The object of the Bill is to provide for pensions for the widows and children of a wide variety of judicial officers. If the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Leslie Hale) has now consulted the first Schedule he will see that it not only includes clerks of assize but also ranges from Lord Chancellors, on the one hand, to legal visitors in lunacy on the other hand, from Lords of Appeal to registrars of county courts, and few, if any, in this House will object to provision being made for the widows and children of such officers.
It must be realised—and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman did make it clear—that the Bill does not increase the attractiveness of any one of these offices. It does not provide for any increased pay or pensions except, perhaps, in connection with the payments for childrens' pensions in 10 to 20 years' time. The Explanatory Memorandum says quite clearly:
The revised method of paying pensions will in the long run cost the State no more than the existing scheme,
Then the Memorandum says—and the meaning of this puzzled me until I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak:
The net cost to the Exchequer in the first year may be of the order of £10,000.
It says that after not less than 30 years the cost may be £40,000. I gather that that net cost is solely in relation to childrens' pensions.

The Attorney-General: Widows and children.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Even then, it must be realised that the financial benefits which this Bill proposes for widows and children of this large number of judicial officers will mainly, if not entirely, be provided by the holders of those offices.


The existing holders have the opportunity of electing whether they come into the scheme or not.

The Attorney-General: I am not quite sure whether I correctly understood what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. The cost of the new scheme in regard to widows and children will be met on a fifty-fifty basis; the judges will be contributing about half and the State about half.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must say that the Explanatory Memorandum could make things a little clearer. If I fall into an error from that, I do not think it is entirely my fault.

The Attorney-General: On a Second Reading Speech?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not on points like this. Any officer, whether he be a Judge or a Master in Lunacy or a Clerk of Assize will, under this Bill, give up a quarter of the pension to which he is entitled. So far as existing holders of those offices are concerned, it is optional to them whether they do so or not. They can consider for themselves whether the proposals in the Bill meet their own family circumstances. Bearing in mind that persons newly appointed to these offices will not have this right of election, I think we are under a particular duty to consider with very great care the effect this Bill will have upon them.
I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill, which is entitled the Administration of Justice Bill, to do something about the emoluments of those holding judicial offices, whether it were done by way of increase of pension or by way of increase of pay. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to refer, as he did, to the lower-paid, but there are few categories of workers in this country who have had no wage increase since 1831, and that is when the salaries of the High Court judges were fixed. There has been a considerable decrease in the value of money since then. I think county court judges have had one increase, but a strong case exists for an increase in the emoluments of both county court and High Court judges. If any decision had to be made between the relative claims of the two, I think perhaps the stronger case

could be made for county court judges, but both cases are strong, and that has been recognised both by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and by a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred today to a speech he made at the annual general meeting of the Bar, but, of course, he has also uttered the same sentiments in this House when speaking in his official capacity. Perhaps I may remind him of what the then Financial Secretary said on 3rd May, 1949:
Legislation will be necessary, and I think I can promise the House that that legislation will not be long delayed; it will certainly be this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 814.]
That was, of course, in regard to this problem. A year later, in this House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking on the subject of the salaries of judges said:
They are out of conformity, as I think I put it, with the general salaries structure of the country.
A moment or two later he said:
The salaries paid to judges ill-reflect the high status and complete independence of the judicial office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1758.]
I entirely agree.

The Attorney-General: I do not wish to retire from what I said, but I think it is right to make it clear that I was expressing a personal opinion, as head of the Bar, and not involving the introduction of the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech last night and I must say that I gained the impression that he was speaking then, as he so often does speak, as a member of the Government. I entirely agree with the sentiments which he expressed, and I can only wish that he could do a little more to carry them into effect by the introduction of a Bill. I suppose that the omission to carry out the pledge given in May, 1949, indicates that there has been a change or a weakening of the Government's intention in that regard.
I think that in Committee, when this Bill has had its Second Reading, we shall have to consider most carefully the quid pro quo which these judicial


officers will receive before they surrender a quarter of the pension to which they are now entitled. It is not easy to judge that from the Bill. This talk of fractions I find always extremely confusing. So many pensions depend on length of service, that of county court judges, for example. I think it would be an assistance to the House if, when we go into Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could, at some stage, publish a paper giving examples of the position in relation to a High Court judge and a county court judge after 10 years service, showing the financial results of the operation of the Bill for someone who has elected to come under the Bill. I think that would help our discussions on the Committee stage.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have to consider the pensions provisions against the background that it is impossible nowadays under this Government for a professional man to save enough to provide for his retirement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman called it "modern conditions," but what he really means is "under this Government." Indeed, it is impossible for the holders of the majority of these offices to save much out of their pay. As I said, those now holding the offices can make an election, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully between now and the Committee stage whether it would not be possible to give that same right of election to those who are appointed to these offices in the future.
Working it out as carefully as I can, and, I hope, accurately, it does seem to me that the provisions of this Bill are by no means beneficial to all judicial officers. I am very doubtful whether the benefits that are likely to be received by several of these officers are in any way proportionate to or commensurate with the sacrifice of a quarter of the pension. Let me take for an example the instance of a High Court judge. For a surrender of a quarter of his pension he will get a lump sum, a sum equivalent to twice that annual reduced pension. As I say, it is difficult to calculate the position of a county court judge, because the pension varies with length of service; but a High Court judge after 15 years gets £3,500. In future under this Bill that pension will be reduced to £2,625; but then he will

get this lump sum which I calculate will amount to £5,250.
I am glad to hear that that lump sum is going to be free from tax liability. I think it will be desirable, if I may suggest it, that some specific proposal to that effect should be included in the Bill; but that lump sum, as I understand it, is the only quid pro quo—which an unmarried office holder or a woman office holder will receive. I know that as yet we have not had a woman High Court judge in this country, but I am taking this example of the High Court judge because it is, perhaps, the easiest to follow through to see how it works out.
It does mean, if these figures are right, that the bachelor High Court judge who draws his reduced pension for six years will then have received exactly the same with the lump sum as if there had been no alteration in his pension, and after the sixth year he will still go on getting his reduced pension, and the Exchequer will gain for every single year of his subsequent retirement.

Mrs. Eirene White: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, is he in that calculation taking into account the freedom from tax? I think it may be a little more. My calculation makes it longer than six years.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am dealing with the bachelor judge. I have worked it out, I must confess—

Mrs. White: The tax would be the highest possible.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have worked it out on the basis of six years. I may have fallen into the same error as some others, though I hope not. It may be that as the lump sum will not attract tax, the period will be a little more extended than six years. But the time will come, quite clearly in the case of the bachelor judge or of a woman office holder, when the amount received by way of lump sum will be more than offset by the reduced pension that that office holder will continue to receive.
I want to take the other case, of the married man with children. I hope I have made that clear. It may be that it will be after seven years. It may be six. I think it is six.

Mrs. White: Nearly 16, if we work it out carefully.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I doubt that very much. The effect of tax is very great, but I rather doubt whether it is 16.
If the office-holder is married, and with children, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, that lump sum is really half, because half is paid away straightaway in a contribution. Then the office holder will get a lump sum of £2,625, and if he leaves a widow she will get a pension of £875. If he leaves children under 16 or under full-time instruction—four of them—then again the pension is £875. I find it difficult to calculate or form any view of the number of cases in which children are likely to qualify for a children's pension under this Bill. I think it is right. of course, that provision should be made for widows and children, but I do feel very considerable doubt whether the holders of these pensions will not find it extremely difficult, notwithstanding the lump sum, in these days during their retirement, to maintain themselves and their families properly on three-quarters of the existing pension.
After all, assuming that the man lives for some years after his retirement, assuming that he has a wife and children, it is much more likely that the burden of the full-time instruction of those children will fall during the man's lifetime, and that those children will be under 16 during his lifetime, than after his death. I find it extremely difficult, therefore, to calculate or form any view as to the number of cases in which children's pension could enure.
In this connection I should like to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to Clause 7 (4). It may be that this is a point which could be more appropriately raised in Committee, but I want to draw attention to it now to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman time to consider it, in the hope that he will alter it. I would not challenge the proposition that if the widow of an office holder remarries, the pension payable to her should cease; but it does seem to be wrong that if the widow remarries, the children's pension should also determine unless the Treasury otherwise decide. It does seem to me that that is quite wrong. After all, the new husband will have no

legal obligation towards his step-children. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give further consideration to that subsection, before the Committee stage.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman may like to know that we have followed there the precedent set by Section 5 (4) of the Superannuation Act, 1949.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was aware of that, and I think objection was raised to that from these benches at that time, so I think we are all being consistent. I must say that I am not at all sure that it would not be better in this Bill—and I think that the Financial Resolution would permit us to do it—to provide for a smaller portion of the office holder's pension to be sacrificed. I know that that would place a slightly heavier burden upon the Exchequer. One cannot form any calculation of that burden. It would be interesting if we could be told what would be the result as far as the Exchequer is concerned. If first of all the lump sum and secondly the widows' and children's contributions were estimated, taken separately, what would be the extra cost of each to the Exchequer on the assumption that there was no reduction in the pension to which people are now, under the existing law, or may become under the existing law, entitled.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, at the outset of his speech, referred to the views expressed by judges in Northern Ireland and by judges in Scotland. I am not in the least surprised to hear that they take—or that some of them take—objection to the benefits contained in this Bill. I am a little surprised to hear that no such objections have been raised in England, for while I can well see that certain individuals may be suited by these provisions, at the same time I doubt if they suit everyone even in England. It is for that reason that I think it is very important that we should, if possible, continue the right of election, and extend it to future holders of these offices.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) may desire to say something further on the Scottish position, on which I am not competent to express an opinion; but one can hardly regard a Measure of this sort as satisfactory in


its present form when the Attorney-General, in moving its Second Reading, has to announce that judges of Northern Ireland and judges of Scotland both dislike its provisions which are intended for the benefit of their widows and children—the degree of provision which is being made.
In moving the Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to one other defect—the forgotten class of public servants—that well-deserving class—judges' clerks. They now receive a salary of £650 a year. They are comparable in position to second class clerks of the Supreme Court. A second class clerk gets a pension on retirement and a gratuity. A judge's clerk gets neither pension nor gratuity.

Mr. Leslie Hale: None at all?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: He gets neither pension nor gratuity. He stands to lose his employment when the judge retires, dies, or is promoted to the House of Lords. I venture to think that, perhaps, judges' clerks are the only class of civil servant in that category who stand such risks in their employment.
I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sir Stafford Cripps in 1938 made some observations on this point, and I should like to remind the House of them. He was dealing with the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, and he said:
The second matter is one of omission, and it is one of those perhaps comparatively small matters which consequently are often overlooked. But small injustices are just as serious as large injustices to those people who suffer from them. I refer to the omission to do anything for the judges' clerks. Those judges' clerks are servants of the State, paid by the Treasury, and are doing admirable, essential, and useful work in the administration of justice, and I believe that they are almost the only public servants in this country who have no pensions provisions whatsoever made for them at the present time. It is all the more peculiar and boring to the judges' clerks in England because the judges' clerks in Scotland do get pensions. They, perhaps owing to their nationality, at the time when the old method of payment by fees was discontinued got provisions made for the setting-up of a pensions fund, out of which they are now pensionable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1938; Vol. 338. 1659.]
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) on the same occasion made a very powerful speech in favour of provision being made for judges'

clerks, and he drew attention then to the pathetic case of one who had had to retire suddenly and was left extremely badly off. I do not think it is possible myself to make any alteration to this Bill to make provision for judges' clerks—I wish it were the case that one could—but I do ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who stated that he is fully in support of the plea put forward on their behalf, to see whether a Bill could not be brought in to give them some sort of pension and some gratuity.
If that could be done, then it would be easy, by amending the First Schedule of the Bill, to bring them within the scope of this Measure that is to say, assuming that the Bill dealing with the judges' clerks could be introduced without undue delay. After all, it would be a very suitable Bill for this Parliament—entirely non-controversial, not likely to put a great strain upon the Chief Patronage Secretary or upon the Government's supporters—and I am sure that a provision of that sort would he welcomed in all parts of the House.
We shall require to consider the provisions of this Bill most carefully in Committee. I hope that we shall have a little time before the Committee stage to consider the Bill in more detail than we have had the opportunity of doing since its introduction to this House. We, on this side of the House, would like to make the Bill as good as possible, and we are sure that it is capable of a good deal of improvement. It is in the belief that it is capable of improvement, in one way or another, that we shall give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I should like to say at once that there was one sentence in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) with which I wholeheartedly agree, and that is that judges' clerks have been the neglected Cinderellas of the legal system. That they have ever had a remuneration is, I think, due to this Government. Previously, the judges were expected to make some provision for them, and that was a very undesirable method.
Everyone who takes part in this Debate will need to remember one or two things. He will need to remember that


we are dealing with the judiciary who, in general, are supposed to abstain from political comment. He will, therefore, want to speak temperately and with a due sense of the very high service rendered to the nation in general by the judiciary, which is certainly the envy and admiration of the world.
I anticipated that the introduction of this Bill might provoke a constitutional crisis of some magnitude, because in 1931, when His Majesty's Government announced that the salaries of the High Court judges were to be submitted to the same cuts as high officers and civil servants, the judges announced that Parliament had no right to interfere with their terms of employment. The matter was ultimately settled by the judges agreeing that they should voluntarily submit to a reduction, and the Government acknowledged with appreciation that voluntary co-operation.
When Parliament proposed to increase the salaries of the county court judges, they were unanimously of the opinion that it was constitutionally practicable to do so. I, personally, have had experience of both these authorities, and I think that the county court judges are right, as they very often are, and I accept the fact that we are not inviting a constitutional crisis in embarking on this course. There are, however, some points of very real difficulty about it, and I think that we ought to consider them. I personally rather regret, although I appreciate the reasons for it—and they are very good reasons—that a matter of this kind is not part of a larger Measure.
There are some grave matters which require an answer. There is a very grave issue in the position of the Lord Chancellor himself—and here I am making no reference to my noble Friend on the Woolsack, who has done more for law reform during the period which he has been in office than any previous occupant of that office in our history. I have pleasure in recalling that in my limited professional experience since I have been in this House most of the major legal grievances have been removed one by one.
During the last 25 years or so, a Lord Chancellor retired after a short period of office on full pension, and he publicly announced that he was not going to take

part in any of the judicial duties normally binding on that office. He commenced writing advertisements for foreign goods in industry, and embarked on a remunerative journalistic career. We always understood that some opportunity would be taken at least to make some regulations or some qualifications for a future occupant of the Woolsack. So far as I know, it is the only office which does not require any legal qualification of any kind, and he is the only person who sits within the vicinity of the House of Lords who does not have to be a peer. I think that is one of the matters that might have been considered.
It is right to remember some things about these figures relating to Lord Chancellors. First of all, the hon. and learned Member for Daventry referred to the fact that this is the only occupation in which the salary of the holder of that office has not been substantially increased for the last 150 years. I rather regret that statement. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the trouble to indulge in a little research into the way in which salaries came to be fixed at that time, and compared them with what they were before, he would not have had recourse to that argument. They were fixed in the days of very high patronage, and for a special reason. It is just as relevant for me to say that high court judges were paid £6 14s. a year in the reign of Henry III—and a very good bench it was in those days—as to refer to what the salary was when fixed in 1809. When it was fixed in 1809, it was fixed entirely on the grounds that the Battle of Trafalgar had increased the price of food; that there was a war on and the cost of necessities had gone up—and if the price of rabbits had increased in the same way as they have in the last week or two, there must have been a double cost on ermine, as well as the additional cost of nutriment—and on those grounds there was a substantial increase.
The whole basis of the Bills which were passed in the reigns of George IV and William IV was on the grounds of the judges surrendering the patronage which they had exercised over the years. Lord Chancellor Eldon had £24,000 a year in patronage nearly all of which he gave to his son. Notwithstanding this self abnegation, he left an estate of £240,000. Lord Chief Justice Ellen-borough had at the same time about


£16,000 in patronage, and it is recorded of him that hearing, while riding in the park, that a great and remunerative office in his disposition had fallen vacant, he at once, with true judicial caution, dismounted from his horse, entered a nearby house and wrote out an appointment of himself to the vacancy. In these circumstances, it may well be thought that he had every opportunity of making provision for his family.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry asked for some specific example as to how the proposals would work. I will take such an example. Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, who was a very distinguished Lord Chancellor, became entitled to a pension under the 1832 Act. In 1837, he married again. He is reported as having lived happily for 25 years with his second widow—[An HON. MEMBER: "Wife."] Yes, his second wife. During that time he drew his pension and his widow survived him for 39 years. I tried to work out roughly the amount that under this Act he and his widow would draw, leaving out children's allowances, and it comes to £150,000 pension, which is, on the whole, not an insignificant item.

The Attorney-General: To reproduce those circumstances, the judge would have to marry before he retired under this Bill.

Mr. Hale: In future, as I understand it. But Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst did qualify by going on the Woolsack on two subsequent occasions after his second marriage.
I do not accept the fact that these salaries are low. In saying that, I do not want to introduce into this discussion one touch of unnecessary prejudice. It would be out of order to refer to a speech which recently came from the Gallery. I would not refer to it for one moment, but there was something in the sentiment for which I have a certain sympathy. In my constituency, I am somewhat concerned in discussing the very real problem of the taxation on old age pensions. The weavers and cotton spinners in Oldham, who are being paid 26s. a week by way of contributory pensions, find that their pensions are subject to tax if they come within the taxation limits. On the other hand, the payments being made under this Bill are discretionary, which certainly

avoids Estate Duty on the lump sum. I ask, bluntly, whether these payments have been made discretionary so as to avoid the payment of Income Tax, and whether, in fact, the payment of Income Tax can be avoided.

The Attorney-General: The payments are discretionary in both cases, but the pension is subject to Income Tax and the lump sum is not, although that is not because of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Hale: The fact remains that the lump sum will avoid the payment of Estate Duty if it is paid after death.
It is rather unusual for the Government to enter into discussions with the judges and to come to an arrangement to avoid Estate Duty. I would rather give the judges more than introduce a sort of dodge which may be a precedent for the future. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look into this question of Income Tax, because a voluntary payment is not normally liable to Income Tax if it is made at the will of the donor. There is a covenant in, in regard to annuities under the Lord Chancellor's Pensions Act, 1832, which undoubtedly would be liable to tax. The Lord Chancellor is not entitled, as a right, to a pension, it being at the discretion of the Throne. In point of fact, it has always been automatic, being executed under the Sign Manual of the Crown and charged to the Consolidated Fund.
There are one or two matters in regard to which I wish to make more specific reference. In so far as this represents, on behalf of members of the judiciary and others holding semi-judicial offices, an effort to dispose of the pensions to which they are entitled under Acts of Parliament in such measure as they collectively think best, it is an admirable scheme. Indeed, I hope that it will be a model for future schemes. But this question of superannuation is one of very great importance. I deplore the fact that the Government have not paid more attention to considering contributory schemes for everyone, especially for the middle classes who are left out, schemes which should make adequate and proper provision.
It is surely something quite new to say that there shall be a pension for a widow which ceases on her re-marriage but starts again if her husband divorces her. That is really remarkable. As far as pensions


for orphans are concerned, they can go on for life. There is no limit during which a pension can be paid, so long as the person concerned qualifies by receiving some education or training and is not in receipt of payment of more than £13 a year.

Mr. Marlowe: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 6, he will see that there is a considerable limitation in time.

Mr. Hale: Yes, Sir, but it can go on for the whole of the person's life. If he is receiving special training and is not in receipt of more than £13 a year, he can receive the pension until he is 50 or 60. That is something new, which seems to me to be entirely indefensible. In Committee I shall suggest that some reasonable limitation be inserted. If we are laying down a Parliamentary precedent for superannuation purposes, this seems to me to be something which should not be permitted.

The Attorney-General: It follows the 1949 Act. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the payment is discretionary. If it were found that full-time education was being pursued after the age of 25, I have no doubt that the discretion would be exercised.

Mr. Hale: I was making the point that these discretionary payments go back to the time when the office of Chafe-Wax was abolished, the office under which a man received many thousands a year for heating the Great Seal to the right temperature. There is something that is quite archaic in quoting precedents on the matter.
I wish to return now to a matter I wished to raise earlier, but from which I have been diverted. If it is a question of reconsideration of judicial salaries, then I think that the county court judges and the stipendary magistrates have had rather a raw deal. Everyone knows that these are horses drawn from the same stable, there being a great deal of luck in who goes to one position and who goes to the other. No one will dispute the fact that the office of a county court judge is a very arduous one. Generally speaking, some of the most successful members of the judiciary are to be found amongst the county court judges and the stipendary magistrates. We see precisely the same type of material occupying the position

of stipendiary magistrates in London as on High Court Bench.
Subject to this, I suggest that the Government Actuary has taken a somewhat optimistic view in his calculations. He has overlooked the fact that, happily, judges have a habit of living to a great age, and are not immune from marrying a second time towards the end of their lives. If we take these facts into account, it may be found that a somewhat optimistic view has been taken of the cost. That does not mean, however, that we shall not have to look into the question of taxation during the Committee stage, which seems to me to be a singularly objectionable feature of this proposal. Subject to that, I am prepared to give these proposals that hearty blessing which I have tried to make clear in my remarks to the House.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It was my intention to offer a measure of welcome to this Bill from the back benches. I must say that it is very difficult indeed to engage upon a non-controversial subject with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), without a measure of controversy being introduced. He did his best to bring into the still waters a certain amount of controversy. As a bachelor, I am grateful to the hon. Member for the prospect of being able to live with one's widow, which opens up a vista of great hope.
As far as the suggestion that this Bill should form part of a wider measure is concerned, I am in agreement. I am in agreement with making reconsideration of salaries more general. The hon. Member for Oldham, West embarked upon the field of controversy when he referred to what a former Lord Chancellor had done and said how wrong it was for him to draw his pension. It has to be remembered that these men have given up enormous earnings to undertake the obligations of their office.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The figures show that the average tenure of office is four years since 1832.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The salary for the office of Lord Chancellor is very much less than these men could earn at the Bar. In the particular case to which he has referred, the person concerned gave up earnings of more than £25,000 at the Bar. In


almost every case, the occupant of the Lord Chancellor's office has received very much less than his current earnings at the Bar. It is not, therefore, unreasonable that he should draw a salary at the end of his term of office, which in all probability has "put paid" to his term at the Bar.
The other controversial statement made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, was that in which he attempted to dispute the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that there had been no increase in salary since 1832. That is a fact, and the hon. Member cannot get away from it, however the salaries might have been fixed at that time. If we consider how other remunerations have increased during the last 50 years or so, it is true to say that the salaries of judges are not what they should be, having regard to the responsibilities of the position. I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West, will agree that, if we are to revise the salaries in one instance, it is probably the county court judges who at the moment have the chief grounds for complaint. It is true to say that most are able to supplement their incomes as well as doing the work of High Court Judge, but that is not always the case, which is a greater reason for the remuneration being on a sounder basis.
So far as taxation is concerned, it is for the Attorney-General to defend the Bill. If it is true that these provisions have been devised in order to avoid taxation, it only proves how iniquitous the burden of taxation is at the present time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the hon. and learned Member really mean that anyone, judge or anyone else, who engages in a piece of taxation evasion, is only proving how iniquitous is the taxation?

The Attorney-General: I want to make it clear that there is no question of tax evasion by judges or anyone else. This provision is not the result of any arrangement or bargaining with the judges. We are following the precedent that has been established over a period of years, more recently by the 1949 Act. There is no question of tax evasion. Taxation is payable on the pension, but it is not payable on the lump sum, which

is an ordinary principle of our Income Tax law.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was hoping that the Attorney-General would say that. I would repeat, however, that it is only when taxation is excessive that the question of tax evasion arises. That suspicion can hardly be avoided, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, has accused the Attorney-General of having introduced a Bill which gives effect to it. The burden of taxation on the professional classes is such that they are unable to save, and therefore this sort of provision has to be made for them.
One cannot look a gift horse in the mouth, but let us consider what sort of measure is being put before us. Clauses 1 and 2 impose no charge on the taxpayer, and therefore they confer no benefit on the judges, although they admit of a sort of actuarial rearrangement as between pensions and lump sums. If I understand the Financial Memorandum aright, this will not cost the taxpayer anything. Clauses 3 to 7, apparently, will involve a charge that ultimately may rise to £40,000. Therefore, this is a very modest attempt to improve the conditions of service of those covered by the Bill. It is unbecoming to be ungrateful, even when a small benefit is being conferred. Because this Bill goes some distance in the right direction, I shall not oppose it.

5.14 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: Although I am not a member of this most honourable and learned profession, I am interested in the Bill for two reasons. The first is a general one, namely, that it is an extension of pension provision for widows and children of a professional class, which I very much welcome. With our present rate of taxation, which I and my hon. Friends think is entirely justifiable for our own social purposes, it is clearly not satisfactory to have nothing except a flat rate National Insurance contribution and a flat rate national pension. It is a most urgent matter for the professional classes and also for the higher paid manual workers that we should consider differential pensions with corresponding differential contributions. I hope that the Government will consider this seriously within the next few years. Because it is a step in that direction for a limited section of the professional classes, I welcome the Bill.
My other interest in the Bill is as a woman. The Bill says that women should be entirely exempt from contribution but it also says that they should be entirely exempt from benefit. As far as I know there is at the moment no woman who aspires to be Lord Chancellor. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) had to say about the Lord Chancellor who was not a peer—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Queen Eleanor was the Keeper of the Great Seal.

Mrs. White: The point interested me because if we had such a person, I wondered whether she would be able to sit in another place. We have women who are eligible for various offices, such as metropolitan police magistrates, and have held them. It is not impossible for a woman to have a dependent child, but under the Bill a woman who may have a dependent child, is not given any option to contribute in order to provide for the child in the case of her death. It is true that the number of cases might be very small, but, as a matter of principle, a woman with a dependent child should be able to make provision for its future if she so wishes. As I understand the Bill, a woman would not be able to contribute, nor would she be in any way eligible for a pension on behalf of a dependent child in the case of her death.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly make sure about this. I will make sure that the rule which provides that the interpretation of the masculine gender shall include the feminine, applies to the Bill. We should not wish to exclude women from the benefits of the Bill.

Mrs. White: Clause 3 specifically refers to a male person, and it is so specific that I should have thought that it could hardly have been interpreted in any other way.

The Attorney-General: I will make quite sure.

Mrs. White: There is another reference in Clause 8 relating to contributions—

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has made a very formidable case and I will certainly look into it. I believe that there is only one case to which the Bill would apply at the moment, but I hope

that it will apply to many more cases as time goes on.

Mrs. White: If my right hon. and learned Friend will do that, I shall be very happy. He will find that Clause 8 states that no contribution shall be received in the case of a woman.
I also want to refer to the position of a widow with children who are receiving a pension. In that case it is left to the discretion of the Treasury whether or not the children shall continue to receive the pension. That seems to be an injustice. If the law officer has earned the pension for his children, he is the person responsible for their wellbeing and not the man whom the widow may subsequently marry. In such a case the children should receive the pension as of right and not merely at the discretion of the Treasury. These are small points, but they are matters of principle and it is right to raise them now. I hope that they will be further discussed on the Committee stage.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) upon her ingenuity in making a very good feminist speech on a Bill which, as far as I can judge, does practically nothing at all for women. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has promised to look into that point, I shall not pursue it further.

The Attorney-General: The Bill refers to widows' pensions.

Mr. Marlowe: I appreciate that, but at the same time pension benefits are cut. In the case of the woman who is the one judicial office holder at the moment there would be a cut of one-quarter of the present entitlement.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) referred to the fact that judges' clerks had had no State salary before the Socialist Government came into Office in 1945. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from the common delusion that the world began only when the Socialist Government came into power. Judges' clerks had a state salary long before 1945.

Mr. S. Silverman: How long?

Mr. Marlowe: I believe that it dates from 1873, although I would not vouch for that.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), was referring to salaries paid by the State to judges' clerks. They do not date back to anything like that year.

Mr. Marlowe: I was also referring to salaries paid by the State. I cannot vouch for the date which I gave, but it was certainly a long time before 1945, and that is the important point.

The Attorney-General: It is a pity that the Conservative Party did not adopt the suggestion made by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1938.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a longer opportunity in which to do it than was provided for the Conservative Party between 1938 and 1939.
I should like to know what is the genesis of the Bill. There seems to be some mystery about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us—he is not obliged to—what its origin was. Was there any demand for it from the majority of those affected? I rather suspect that the demand, if there was any, came from the lower ranks of those affected, such as the county court judge level, and not so much from the High Court level. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give the House some information on that point. One has no means of informing oneself on these matters, although one may get individual opinions, but a collective view cannot be got. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in a difficulty in this matter because those who will mainly be affected do not belong to a body which he can consult.
The existing High Court Bench has the right to opt out and therefore its interest would not be very strong. Those who will in future be compelled to submit to the scheme are not yet there. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no formed body he can consult, but it is usual to take some soundings in such a matter, and I should like the House to be told what is the general view of the High Court Bench at the moment. Although they are not greatly affected, they are persons who are in a position to have some opinion about the matter. I should like to know what their opinion was.
If what pressure there was came from the lower ranks of the bench it would seem probable that the High Court judges have been brought into the scheme whether they like it or not because they can provide a large part of the contribution. As the contribution is half the lump sum which is paid on retiring, the amount which they will contribute will be considerably higher than that of any other beneficiary in the scheme. I should like to know how the Bill came to be born. Obviously somebody must have decided that it was a scheme which ought to be introduced; yet I am, so far, completely in the dark as to who took that view.
The judges will receive three general benefits under the Bill—the lump sum, the widows' benefits, and the children's benefit. In return for that they will surrender half their lump sum and a quarter of their present pension entitlement. The children's benefit does not appear to be of any great advantage. Could we be told the actuarial expectation in these matters? The hon. Member for Oldham, West, perhaps rather lightheartedly, referred to the possibility of a children's pension going on indefinitely. That could not happen in practice because under Clause 6 the beneficiary has to be either under 16 or undergoing training at a university or training as an apprentice, and the payment is discretionary. If any fraudulent attempt were made by a so-called child by pretending at the age of 50 or 60 still to be serving as an apprentice or to be receiving training at a university, it is unlikely that discretion would be exercised in his favour. The children's benefit is to a large extent an illusion for it is unlikely that there will be many children who will qualify for it. Not many judges retiring at about 70 will have sixteen-year-old children.
Another so-called benefit is the lump sum. It ought clearly to be understood that the lump sum is halved at once, because, as always happens nowadays with any payment which is received, when our present rulers hand us anything with one hand they take back the greater part of it with the other. In this case, half the lump sum is immediately handed back by way of contribution, and, therefore, the lump sum is not two years' reduced pension but one year's reduced pension. Therefore, the case made by the Attorney-General of these benefits which were to be received—the lump sum


and the children's pension—seemed to be not worth a very great deal. That is why I am interested in the question of who really wants the Bill and who supports it.
My final point concerns salaries, which have an important relation in this matter. Obviously the amount of salary a person receives is important in relation to the amount of pension he may wish to receive when his salary ends. I have dealt with this matter in the House before and it is not necessary to go over all the ground again, but the Attorney-General said in effect that there was a case for making an increase—at least, he drew attention to the fact that on another less official occasion he had called attention to the case for an increase. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), also has pointed out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something to that effect during a previous Debate. Both today and on that occasion, the Attorney-General took the line that although that case existed it could not possibly be granted while there were other cases which also did not receive an increase.
That is an irrelevant point. The other cases have largely been met, although, of course, not all of them; there are many cases still outstanding where we should all like to see increases in pay and salary. It is not enough, however, merely to say that other cases exist and, therefore, this one cannot be met. Each case has to be taken on its merits. Since these salaries were fixed in 1831, other increases have been effected. There is no doubt that the other cases have since been met and that, although bishops, perhaps, have not benefited, there have been increases in almost every walk of life.
Therefore, the argument is not met merely by saying that other cases exist in which there is hardship. I agree that that is so, however, and all of us would like to see greatly increased wages in many quarters, but the present case, one which has been admitted both by the Attorney-General and by the previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he said that it ought to be met, cannot be dealt with merely by saying that other cases exist. I hope that in the near future the Government will reconsider this matter, because they have given their pledge. It was agreed by the right hon.

and learned Gentleman that it is a pledge which, when the opportunity offers, should be honoured, and I hope the Attorney-General will think that the time for honouring it is not far off.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) seemed to be in some difficulty to find a reason for the introduction of the Bill, and at the same time he was congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), on the ground that she had managed to support the Bill on feminist grounds when it did nothing at all for women. I cross swords with the hon. and learned Member on both those points. It is precisely because the Bill does something, as it seems to me, for women that I am supporting it; and that is an excellent reason for its being introduced. The hon. and learned Member, therefore, is wrong on both grounds.

Mr. Marlowe: I said that the Bill did very little for women.

Mr. Mallalieu: The hon. and learned Member says that the Bill does very little for women, but if it provides any sort of security which previously they did not have, it does something which is well worth doing.
I am glad that in all the stress of political vicissitudes and the pressure of world events, the Government have found time to introduce this legislation, and I should like to offer two words of welcome for the good which I believe the Bill does. It was in some ways characteristic of former times that generally, in legislation with regard to the marriage contract, the legislature laid most stress upon the male partner to that contract.
There is a tendency now towards a more generous consideration for the other party to that contract. This move is by no means before it's time, because in present day circumstances—and this would apply no matter what Government were in power—it is far more difficult than ever before for a professional man to make, for his wife and dependents after his death, the sort of provision to which they had been entitled during his life. It is as well therefore that we have adopted a rather more considerate attitude towards this section of the community, the wives


and dependents of those engaged in professional occupations, than was shown before.
Already, as has been pointed out, the Government have in other spheres—by the 1949 Superannuation Act, for example—brought security to a very large section of wives and dependants—those of civil servants—by just such legislation as the Measure we are now discussing. I am aware, of course, that for historical reasons one must not draw too close a parallel between the judiciary and the Civil Service, but because the judiciary happens to be so to speak, outside the main stream of political activity, that is no reason why we should at the same time keep them outside the main stream of political progress. I am very glad, therefore, that this legislation with regard to the judiciary has been brought into line with other progressive legislation which has been introduced by the present Government in regard to the Civil Service.
This legislation is all in keeping with the progressive line which the Government have adopted in trying to provide greater security for the greatest possible number of people. The fact that the women and dependants with whom the Bill deals happen to be of a kind who are not vocal, who are small in number, and who do not constitute a great electoral pressure group, is no reason at all why the Government should ignore them: and I am very pleased that, although they have very little to gain electorally by this piece of legislation, the Government have in fact introduced it.
Even private enterprise has made provision for women and dependents in its pension schemes for employees, and it would be a very bad thing indeed if the Government were to fall behind in some such way as this. I should like, in fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), said, the greatest and widest possible measure of security for dependants to be introduced by this Government. The Bill does not cover a large section of the community but I am glad, and very proud, that it should have been a Labour Government which made this so considerable a step in such an excellent direction.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Howard: I desire to say a few words on a matter which was mentioned by the Attorney-General with regard to the position of judges' clerks and to support the plea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that something a little more sustaining than sympathy, from however exalted a quarter it may come, should at the earliest possible moment be provided to do something to ameliorate their present precarious financial position.
As the Attorney-General said, judges' clerks perform, albeit unobtrusively, a most important work in the day by day administration of justice. Those of us who have any experience of circuits know that a first-class judge's clerk goes a long way in ensuring the smooth running of our circuit system. They help and advise litigants, solicitors and counsel, and it seems to me of the highest possible importance that there should be attaching to this post conditions which will attract men of experience and ability. As hon. Members opposite have indicated, the financial position of judges' clerks has grown much worse with the passage of the years. In days gone by, most judges made provision for their clerks in case they should retire or die. Under present circumstances that is impossible, and the clerk himself, upon a salary which, I am told, is approximately the same as it was in 1873, is quite incapable of making adequate provision.
It is for those reasons that I venture to hope that something may be done to relieve a great burden of anxiety from a devoted band of public servants. Although they are only small in number—their total, I think, is about 48 or 50—the danger will be that unless something is done, men of experience and ability will be unable to risk the financial sacrifice which is so often entailed by a judge's clerk when he goes with his master to the bench. I sincerely hope that some plan may be devised so that they may be provided with some kind of pension to relieve the existing load of anxiety from their minds and to maintain that quality which up to now has existed.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This is a good Bill, with good objects and good methods, but it has one serious defect, in that it applies the same principle


of assessment to people with large salaries as it does to those who have small salaries. I think that that is wrong. The Bill is designed to deal with a great variety of judicial officers, with a great variety of salaries, some large and some small, and I think it is wrong that the same principle of assessment should be applied to all those different types of salary. The particular instance I have in mind is that of the sheriffs and sheriffs substitute in Scotland. In status they are equivalent to English county court judges. In jurisdiction they have a wider range, and in work they have a greater variety, but their salaries and pensions are smaller, and under the Bill their pensions will remain small.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said that the Bill introduces no new principle. That is a pity, for the reason I have indicated. I think that it should introduce a principle of differential pensions, so that those with smaller salaries should have their pensions calculated upon a different basis to those with large salaries. After all, for what purpose is a pension designed? It is designed to give a decent retiring allowance to the person in receipt of the pension, whether he be a High Court judge or a minor judicial officer.
I am very sorry that the Bill does nothing about salaries. In this direction there would have been an opportunity of dealing with the anomaly to which I have referred in the case of sheriffs and sheriffs substitutes in Scotland. Their work, as I have said, is of greater variety and extent than that of the English county court judges, yet they get smaller salaries and pensions. Under the Bill, their pensions will remain small. A High Court judge in either England or Scotland receives a pension designed to enable him to spend his retirement according to a certain standard or scale. An English county court judge on his smaller pension can do it, but with difficulty. But sheriffs and sheriffs substitute in Scotland, with a smaller basis of salary and smaller basis of assessment, have still greater difficulties. Here is an anomaly with which I think this Bill should have dealt, and I hope that before it leaves the Committee stage, the Minister will take care to see that justice is done to sheriffs and sheriffs substitute in Scotland.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I find myself very largely in agreement with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I have never been able to understand why there should be a tremendous difference in the salaries paid to judicial officers, judges and sheriffs in Scotland and their counterparts in England. I should think it would come very well from the present Government, who believe in equality, to level out these differences, not so much by reducing the salaries in England as by bringing up those in Scotland. I ask the Lord Advocate, who I believe is to reply to the Debate, what is the general opinion in Scottish legal circles on this matter; what the judicial bench think about it and what the sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute think? Are they all equally in favour, or are there any differences of opinion on the matter?
However much we may welcome a Bill such as this, which gives a certain degree of security to the widows and children of judges, it would have been much more welcome if at the same time some increase could have been given in salaries. There is one aspect of this matter in regard to Scotland which I have never been able to understand. I gather that in England a subsistence allowance is given to judges when they go on circuit while the expenses necessarily incurred by judges on circuit in Scotland have to be met out of their ordinary salaries which I do not think is fair.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, said that the idea behind a pension was that the widow, or the judge, as the case may be, might continue to live on a standard suitable to the office previously held. I thought that was recognised in the Navy in the old days when the pension paid to a junior naval officer on retirement was sometimes larger than the salary he obtained while serving. I wish to ask why freedom to opt whether to accept the new scheme or not is restricted to those who are at present judges or sheriffs. I ask the Lord Advocate why this freedom cannot be extended to future occupants of the benches or sheriffs' substituteships? If that could be included in the Bill, it would make it very much better and would remove a great deal of the unpleasantness and lack of enthusiasm which is felt in some quarters.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said that it had become very difficult if not impossible for a person engaged in the professions or occupying one of the judicial or official posts to which the Bill relates to make provision for his dependants. That is perfectly true. The reason is not difficult to find. Indeed, the need for this Bill arises from the fact that judges and judicial officers to whom it relates are no longer able to make adequate provision for their dependants. The reason is the penal and crippling rate of taxation which they in common with other taxpayers have to carry under the present Government.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in doubting whether this Bill is going to be of the advantage to the judges and other officers concerned which the Attorney-General invited the House to think it would be. However that may be, I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies he will make it perfectly plain that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that this Bill represents some attempt at evasion of tax on the part of those which it is intended to benefit.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South, I also regret that the opportunity was not taken to revise the salaries of judges and judicial officers. I should have thought the present would have been a particularly appropriate time to take that course. I understand the Government have announced their intention of carrying the report of the Chorley Committee into effect. That will increase the salaries of senior members of the Civil Service. It may be considered that increases in salaries ought to wait a little longer; but if it has been decided that increases in salaries in that group of public servants were appropriate it might also have been thought that the present time was suitable to increase the emoluments of judges which, as has been said, have remained fixed for a very long period.
I wish to say a few words about the judge's clerk. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was a pity that a Conservative Government of that time did not

take the advice given by Sir Stafford Cripps and make the office of judges' clerks a pensionable office. The answer is very simple. In those days it was not so necessary because at that time judges were in a better position to make provision for their clerks after retirement than they are in today. This brings us back to the rather melancholy reflection that this Bill and indeed, all Bills of this sort, as well as the suggestion made from both sides of the House that judges' clerks should now be included amongst the pensionable officers, have their origin in the fact that the crippling burden of taxation today has made it impossible for the judges to do what they were accustomed to do in the past.
There is another matter which I wish to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is perhaps a rather minor one. I have looked as carefully as I can through the list of judicial officers to be included in the provisions of this Bill. As far as I can see the Admiralty registrar has been omitted. He is not an officer who plays any very conspicuous part in the public eye but he performs very valuable service and in war-time, when he is usually the Registrar of the Prize Court as well, he discharges very important functions. I am sure he must have been omitted from the provisions of the Bill by an oversight or for good reasons which I have not been able to ascertain. If not, there seems to be no reason why he should not have the advantages which are given to other officers of the same type.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I should like to ask one question of the Lord Advocate in the belief that he may be able to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). As I understand, since this is a vote on the Consolidated Fund he is perfectly in order in moving an Amendment at a later stage so that he could bring forward a suggestion that the Scottish sheriffs should be remunerated, in pension, at any rate, on the same basis as the judges of the High Court in England.

5.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There are two aspects of the Bill before us—the general position as to the fall in the value of money, and the necessity of bringing in measures of one kind or another which will in some way make


up to high salaried officers, or officers who previously enjoyed high salaries, for the combined effect of the lower value of money and of high taxation in making impossible the provision they themselves were able to make in former years for their later years and for their dependants. Then there are special problems affecting the other parts of the United Kingdom with which the Attorney-General dealt briefly, but with which the Lord Advocate may be able to deal at some greater length.
The difficulties of the general position have been discussed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and I have nothing to add to what he said in that matter, the more so as that general position was discussed in a fairly non-controversial atmosphere by most of the speakers who succeeded him. But the position is particularly acute as regards the northern Kingdom. The Attorney-General said that some of the judges did not entirely agree with the proposals which are now brought forward. My information is that all the judges disagreed except one—[Interruption.] I am dealing at the moment with the High Court judges and judges of the Court of Session.
I understand that 14 out of 14 of the High Court Judges are not in agreement at present with the proposals put forward. Indeed, the correspondence on this matter runs up to the 17th day of the present month. They had an inquiry from the Secretary of State as recently as the 7th of this month as to whether the Measure found general acceptance with them and their answer dates as recently as the 17th.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but he will agree that the letter of 7th November was one of a series and that correspondence had been going on several weeks prior to that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Oh, undoubtedly. I do not wish to embark upon the correspondence in general because I have no knowledge of how much would be regarded as confidential and how much not confidential. This is part of a lengthy correspondence. But that really

strengthens my point, that a long correspondence had been going on and that this was not sprung on the Secretary of State for Scotland in any way. The letter of the 7th was at the end of a long correspondence but the answer—10 days later on the 17th, which is not an undue delay—was to the effect that the judges of the Court of Session of Scotland would prefer to be altogether excluded rather than to be brought under the terms of this Bill.
Under these circumstances, that the Bill should be so introduced, without the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate having any place upon it, seems to indicate certain lack of co-ordination which one could scarcely have expected; all the more so since the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the Lord Advocate will agree, is in a special position. He is heir to the quasi-position of the Lord Chancellor. He is the Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland, and, as a consequence of that, as both learned Gentleman opposite know, is frequently brought into Acts of Parliament in a position as opposite number to the Lord Chancellor of England.
On this we have often had discussion before, because in some ways a purely party appointment such as the Secretary of State for Scotland is somewhat inadvisable for such a point which as against the Lord Chancellor who is understood to take a more detached view of these matters. The position of the Secretary of State for Scotland as Keeper of the Great Seal is so well recognised that he actually takes the Great Seal of Scotland itself on the death of a Sovereign, a position which I think is only enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor in the case of England. Is it not strange that the Keeper of the Great Seal should not have been able to come to any further agreement with the High Court of Scotland than the position which we now find?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South, has said that it might be a good thing in the case of the other judges if a continuing right of option were allowed. It certainly seems it would be very necessary in the case of Scottish judges because actually in some cases their remuneration is to be reduced—[Interruption]—I mean their emoluments, their return for accepting this position. This is not in any way favouring the rich


that the high judges of the land should be in a position keenly sought after by the best men in the profession, and that position, once it is attained, should be above the minor strains of life.
That is much more advantageous to the poorest members of the community than to the richest members of the community. The judge must be placed above temptations of one kind or another which great wealth or influence may place in his way. Above all men, the poor man is the man who must see his judge is placed above the position of the casual rich man who may have acquired wealth or indeed those holding honour of an hereditary place and power. This is not in any kind of way a suggestion that the rich should be given more money. It is a position that the poor may be given the utmost possible protection. In so far as the position of the judge is diminished, the position of the poor man is weakened. Therefore, we should go into this whole question in the most careful fashion possible.
As I say, the desire of the Scottish judges must be carefully taken into account. I was glad, and I am sure the whole House will be glad, of the promise of the learned Attorney-General that that consideration would be given. May I reiterate the requests made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South that adequate time should be given before this Bill is taken in Committee? It will, no doubt, be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House so that we shall all have an opportunity of making our contribution. The learned Attorney-General, with disarming frankness, indicated that, in his view, arithmetic was a matter of philosophical doubt. He also, did not wish to dogmatise about the exact position of half a half as equalling in some circumstances a quarter. Indeed the mental arithmetic which with some distress he underwent during interrogation by his own Front Bench would seem to be clear evidence that in this matter he, as we have to do when we listen to him, was relying on the authoritative expression of opinion given by those in a better position to judge.
If the learned Attorney-General, with all his advantages, was in a difficulty, conceive the difficulties of those of us in the House, and particularly those of us who will subsequently have to account to our

constituents in considering the difficult position which has arisen between the Court of Session judges and the sponsors of this Bill. I trust he will be able to give us adequate time for consideration and that the Government will not attempt to be too niggardly in the acceptance of Committee points which we put forward. Certainly this Bill is in its initial stages. There is a good deal of pulling about to be done by the House before it reaches the Statute Book.
We are not in a position to dogmatise as whether or not this is the occasion to discuss the question of higher salaries of judges. On the face of it, I think it would be an inappropriate thing to do. But that the position of His Majesty's judges has certainly diminished vis-à-vis other members of the community is beyond all doubt. How far that process can be allowed to go is a matter which this House should seriously search its conscience upon; because nothing is easier, especially during a period of inflation, than to postpone those readjustments in the case of people who are not immediately going to take vigorous action of one kind or another because their standard of living has fallen or is actually in some cases making it impossible for highly skilled people to take on certain positions. But make no mistake about it, it is all the more necessary that this House should deal with these matters frankly and freely and before the pressure becomes too great.
At present we are in the position of discussing it in a non-party atmosphere. Nothing would be easier than to find ourselves slipping off the rails to one side or another; more particularly if the argument about whether a highly paid officer should have a lower pension than a lowly paid officer is brought in. These emoluments are not given for the benefit of the rich, but for the protection of the poor, and the maximum efficiency of our system of justice.

6.9 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I was glad to hear from the last two or three speakers that thought is being devoted, as it was when we had the Bill before us in the early part of the last Session, to the problem of adequate remuneration of judges. I agree entirely with what my right hon. and gallant Friend has just said about the proper


remuneration of judges as a great safeguard for the whole community. We have always regarded British judges as persons completely beyond any possibility of corruption and one reason was that, originally, their salary was a good one. With £5,000 a year and Income Tax at 8d. in the pound they were very comfortable. That is not so today, and I suppose that a judge would look rather shabby in court but for his robe.
That is a disreputable position to be in, and I hope that the time will come when this or some other Government will devote its attention to what is, in fact, a great problem. I am interested in this discussion on the remuneration of Scottish and English judges and the effect on their pension. As the Government have conveniently set forth in the financial accounts of the United Kingdom—on pages 40 and if anyone wishes to check the figures—a High Court judge gets £5,000 a year and Scottish judges, there are 12 of them, get £3.600 each and pensions are proportionately reduced.
There is one point I would like to put to my Scottish friends and that is, why it is that in England where we have a population of 44 million, or something like it, we can do the job with only 43 judges, whereas Scotland, with a population of less than five million, needs 14? I do not know whether they are very much fonder of litigation than we are—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Since the question is directly asked, and since perhaps it is appropriate that it should be answered by a layman rather than by one who himself, at no distant date, may easily occupy such a post, I would say, first, that the position is an historical position, to which, as a Conservative, I am sure my hon. Friend will give full weight. Second, the Scottish legal system is no child or "by-blow" of the English legal system but is derived directly from great fountains of law from which the English system never drew. Last, my hon. Friend will also remember the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that the lower salaries of sheriffs and sheriff substitutes have to be brought in to balance up the larger proportionate numbers of judges in Scotland.

Sir H. Williams: An Englishman, of course, works harder. I knew that the

Scottish law is so involved that it requires more judges per thousand, or per acre, or whatever it is. As regards sheriffs and sheriff substitutes, Scotland has a much smaller area population. It is about half the size of England and yet in Scotland they have 12 sheriffs and 47 sheriff substitutes—that is, 59. In England we have 60 county court judges and I believe that the sheriffs and sheriff substitutes are the equivalent of our county court judges. Why do they want 59 compared with our 60? If they reduced the numbers there would be a bit more money to go round.
So far as I can make out, any person who is called to the Scottish Bar, and who has any kind of practice at all, is bound to finish up as a judge, and have the title of "Lord," which is not employed by an English judge but which is a kind of compensation for a reduced salary. Despite the picture of Queen Anne receiving the Act of Union which we see in St. Stephen's Hall, it would be useful to find out whether or not Scotland is rather "over-judged," if that is the right phrase to use. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would tell me why he requires so much more assistance in Scotland than is required in England.

6.14 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Throughout the cross currents of opinion which have been bandied across the Floor of the House, I think that, on the whole, there is general acceptance of the purpose and principle of this Bill. It is true there is some qualification in relation to the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in Northern Ireland and with that I shall deal later. But I am confident that there is general acceptance of the principle and purpose to provide security to the judges and other judicial officers in respect of their dependants which hitherto was never the case.
I think I am entitled to say that apart from the two exceptions to which I have referred the various judges and judicial officers affected by this Bill welcome the propositions contained in it. It is, I think, trite to say that when a Government does things it meets with a great deal of criticism, but when a Government does nothing it does not meet with anything like the same criticism and there are often many injustices left untouched over a long


period of years. It is right to expect that when a Bill of this nature is introduced, and a scheme for improvements is brought forward, further improvements will be mooted from both sides of the House, perhaps particularly from the opposite side of the House.
I do not want to get controversial on that matter, but may I say that many of the points which have been raised as worthy of correction, because they point to injustice, were matters which could have been rectified a long time ago. I need only to point to one or two instances. In the case of the judges' clerks, to which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred, in 1938, that particular injustice could have been rectified prior to that date, but it was not even rectified then. So, too, with the question of judges' salaries. I agree entirely with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he said he did not think this was the appropriate time to consider this vexed and difficult question.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the learned Lord Advocate does not wish to misrepresent me. I said this Bill was not the appropriate place.

The Lord Advocate: I used the word "time" in the sense of this Parliamentary discussion. The principle underlying this pensions scheme which, in the opinion of many of the people affected by it, is an advantage to them in planning their future, would be equally applicable and equally sound or unsound irrespective of whether or not there was any alteration in the salaries of the persons concerned. The formula which has been devised will apply to existing salaries and to any future salaries which may be the subject of revision.
In view of the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland have been mentioned, I should indicate to the House that, so far as Scotland is concerned, it is only the judges of the Court of Session who have indicated their lack of desire that this scheme should be applied to them. That opinion was expressed by 13 out of 14, but every other judge in Scotland affected by this Bill is in favour of it. The sheriffs substitute, the full-time sheriffs of Lanarkshire and the Lothians, the Sheriff of Aberdeen—who is the only part-time sheriff affected by the Bill—the Chairman of the Land Court—all have

accepted the principle of the Bill. It would be unfortunate if the impression went forth from this Debate, however unwittingly, that the judges of Scotland as a whole were opposed to the principle and policy of this Bill. I shall deal with that matter further at a later stage. Accordingly, I hope that we can consider this question, at this and at subsequent stages of the Bill, divorced from the question of salaries.
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made what I regard as rather an unfair criticism of the first two Clauses, when he said that nothing was being given by the Treasury in return for the sacrifices referred to in those Clauses. That statement pays no regard to the benefits conferred under the Bill because, by the reduction of the pension by one-quarter, there flows from that the right to the widow's pension and to the children's pension, subject of course to the other additional payment, equal to one year's pension at the reduced rate. Therefore Clauses 1 and 2 merely pave the way for the quid pro quo, in return for which there are given the widow's pension and the children's pension.

Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us exactly what is the actuarial value of the new contributions as against the benefits received? I think the learned Attorney-General said it was about half and half, but is that the actuarial finding on the matter?

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate, it will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but the broad, general actuarial calculation is that it will be borne half and half.
Questions were raised under these Clauses in relation to the capital sum which will be paid, equivalent in some cases to two years' pension and in other cases to one year's pension, according to the option exercised by existing office holders. Of course the lump sum which is paid will not be subject to Income Tax. The reason for that is that the judges who come within this scheme, and who fall within the formula, are giving up part of their pension rights in return for, inter alia, the lump sum they receive. Accordingly it is treated as capital and not as income, and under a recent decision of the House of Lords is not subject to tax.
With regard to the other benefits conferred, I think it right to state categorically that the lump sums payable on death and the widow's pensions, are not included in the estate of the deceased judge or judicial officer for Death Duty purposes. These are points which were giving a certain amount of concern to those immediately interested in the proposals, and that assurance is given because it conforms with the taxation principles.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to consider incorporating that in the Bill? He will remember that on a previous occasion when the tax law favoured the subject, the Government by retrospective legislation altered the law in the middle of the proceedings.

The Lord Advocate: No, I do not think it is necessary because that is the law as it stands. If it were desirable to have a declaratory provision, the proper vehicle for it would be a Finance Bill, not this Bill. I do not see that it is necessary to include in every Bill a declaratory provision of the law appertaining to the subject in question.
We cannot ignore the possibility that some people covered by this Bill will not benefit. We all appreciate that, and examples have been given. Of course there will be no reduction in salary, but there will be a reduction in pension for those existing office holders who opt to come within the scheme. No such option will be given to future appointees. It may be that in the particular circumstances of an office holder he will not enjoy benefits to the same extent as he would have done if this Bill had not been passed. However, as far as one can judge, the majority of the people covered by this Bill will benefit.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), asked whether in this instance, since the existing office holders can opt out of the scheme, we should not give a similar right to new appointees. That is a matter to which we would not close our minds completely, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that actuarially it might make the running of this scheme difficult. While one can take actuarial advice in relation to existing office holders, it is difficult to get any

actuarial scheme or advice which can be based on any degree of assurance when the number of people who will be coming within a scheme is not known.
If we are planning for the future under this Bill and trying to take into account exactly what the respective cost will be, both to the individual and to the Treasury, any calculation may be quite impossible if at the time we institute the scheme we cannot say how many people in the future will be embraced by it, and how many will opt out. I am sure that, with a full sense of responsibility, the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that difficulty and recognise that, although I have given an assurance that we shall look at the matter carefully. I can give no guarantee or undertaking that we will necessarily accede to that request.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) suggested that the children's benefits conferred by the scheme were largely illusionary, arguing that it was unlikely that a judge would have children to satisfy the conditions set out in Clause 6 of the Bill.

Mr. Marlowe: After retirement.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that as long as a judge has a wife during his period of relevant service, it does not matter how late in that relevant service he gets that wife. According to the best advice that I can obtain—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), with his great medical knowledge can correct me if I am wrong—there is no reason why a judge should not produce the necessary people to qualify under Clause 6. It is one of the Clauses which was introduced after the initial proposals were brought forward on the initiative of the Government to cover cases of this nature which might arise, and has given a great deal of satisfaction to the people who have been consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), queried the definition of children within this Clause. This is as set out in the Income Tax Acts and it has a precedent in the Superannuation Act, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does that mean that someone can go on staying at a university until he is at least 50 in certain circumstances?

The Lord Advocate: The point is that this pension is a discretionary pension, and, in the first place, the circumstances suggested by my hon. Friend are very unlikely; and, secondly, if someone tried to drive a coach and pair through the Act by continuing his university career until he reached the age of 50, and graduating amid cries of "Old soldiers never die," the Treasury would take that position into account when determining whether it would be an appropriate pension to pay. Even so, in those circumstances it would be very unlikely that the person would qualify under the provisions of this section of the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), suggested that there should be differential rates of pension according to the salaries of the particular judges, and that a higher proportion of salary should be given by way of pension to the lower paid judges than is given to the higher paid judges. The existing proportion of the salary payable to any particular judge is regulated by Statute. It varies from the status of judge to the status of judge, and I do not think that anyone can cavil very much about Scotland, because the pension payable to a Court of Session judge is payable after 15 years service, or if he retires on a medical certificate not having completed the 15 years. My recollection is that it is two-thirds of the salary that is paid by way of pension.

Sir H. Williams: Two thousand seven hundred pounds.

The Lord Advocate: That is three-quarters of his salary. On the other hand the sheriff substitute pension is determined on whether he retires after 10, 15 or 20 years when he reaches 65, and he gets one-third, two-thirds or three-quarters of his salary respectively. These pensions are related to the service provided by the particular judge, and I do not think that the scheme calls for any revision.
The hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) raised the question of travelling and subsistence allowances for Scottish judges. I am sorry to harp

so much on the Scottish position, but am dealing with the various points in the order that they were raised. In 1887 the Government of the day, for reasons which they thought fit at the time, fixed a consolidated salary of £5,000 per annum to the Lord President of the Court of Session, £4,800 to the Lord Justices Clerk and £3,600 to the other judges of the Court of Session, and these salaries embraced travelling and subsistence allowances. In the Act of 1887 it is specifically laid down that the judges' salaries include what was formerly given by way of expenses for travelling and subsistence. Therefore, the position has been as it is now since 1887. This is a matter that should appropriately be left to the time when judicial salaries can be reviewed, because it is an integral part of any question of a review of judicial salaries.
The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) raised the point regarding the Admiralty Registrar. He is included in the Probate Registrar, and, therefore, there is no omission in the first Schedule of the Bill.
I have dealt with the various points raised in the discussion apart from the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) about the judges of the Court of Session indicating their unwillingness to participate in the scheme. I am rather sorry that the voice of Northern Ireland has not been heard, but I think that we shall deal with the Irish judges as we will deal with the judges of the Court of Session. It is true that representations have been made on behalf of a majority of the judges of the Court of Session to the effect that they desire to be left out of this scheme. I should like to point out, however, that they are not doing so on their own behalf, because as individuals they can opt out of the scheme. They are doing so in order to preserve the position of future appointees, because they feel that as the situation under the Bill is, that while a majority of future judges would benefit under the scheme a minority might suffer detriment, it would not be right to give their approval to a scheme which had that result.
One can appreciate the motive underlying that declaration, but having regard to the fact that they are not personally


involved and are merely trying to safeguard the position of posterity, I am not sure that we can accept their word as the last word on the subject. One would like to consult the views of the people who might be affected in the future, because they have a greater interest than existing judges, who have the right to opt out of the scheme. I should like an opportunity of consulting other parties more directly interested, because I do not think this should be in any way related to the demand for an increase of salary. I do not think that this House would regard it as proper to make the existence of this scheme a sine qua non for an increase in salary; or to put the matter in reverse fashion, to make a declaration of increase of salary a sine qua non of the acceptance of the scheme. This scheme should be judged on its merits and on its merits alone.
While we will look at the matter between now and the Committee stage, and while we shall consult not only the judges but any other interested parties whom we think it right and proper to be consulted in this matter, I can give no undertaking about the ultimate result, because naturally until these further consultations have taken place and the results are known, the Government cannot make up their minds as to what the actual decision will be. I pointed out that even supposing there had not been this objection, and supposing there had been in the case of one or two appointees an overall loss on accepting this scheme, it is one thing to impose a scheme on existing judges with the option of opting out of the scheme, and another thing to make the scheme a part of the terms and conditions of a new appointment, about which a person knows before accepting the appointment.
That is a fundamental point, which we must bear in mind. It is one thing to alter the conditions of the existing holder; it is another thing to introduce new terms and conditions when offering appointments to future holders of the office. I can assure the House that the undertakings that have been given will be implemented and all the necessary consultations will take place. I think it would be a pity if there were any differentiation between sections of the judges in Scotland, Northern Ireland or

anywhere else. The purpose underlying this Bill is one which must commend itself to the House, and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

Sir H. Williams: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why are all these sheriff substitutes necessary in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: I hardly think it worth while to occupy the time of the House by telling the hon. Gentleman the reason for that, but he can ascertain the necessity for it if he goes to the Library and studies the subject. I doubt if this is the place in which to give a tutorial lecture on Scottish law and customs. I invite the hon. Gentleman either to consult the authorities in the Library or to consult me outside, but I do not think that it is a germane consideration to the Bill before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second. time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House Committee Tomorrow.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order Number 84 (Money Committees). [King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the pensions and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who administer justice, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of

(i) any lump sum or widow's or children's pensions payable under the said Act of the present Session, if and so far as it is directed by that Act to be so paid; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under section twenty of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, are to be so paid;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of

(i) any such lump sum or widow's or children's pensions as aforesaid, if and so far as it is directed by the said Act to be so paid;


(ii) such part of any pension for service as President of the Transport Tribunal as is directed by the said Act to be so paid;
(iii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or the Superannuation Act, 1949, are payable out of moneys so provided;
(iv) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, fall to be so paid;
(v) any administrative expenses incurred by any Government Department attributable to the passing of the said Act;

(c) the payment into the Exchequer of

(i) the refund of any part of a lump sum payable under the said Act, if and so far as it is directed by the said Act to be so paid;
(ii) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which under the Superannuation Act, 1949, fall to be so paid.—[The Attorney-General.]

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: A number of suggestions have been made about improving the Bill which has just received its Second Reading, and I am wondering whether those improvements can be made within the terms of the Money Resolution. I think they can, but it would be well for it to be put on record that the financial position can be improved within the terms of the Money Resolution.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I understand that the answer to that question is, "Yes."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (PENSIONS)

Resolved:
That no relief shall be given under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, or any other provision of the Income Tax Acts providing for relief for income tax purposes, in respect of contributions towards the cost of pensions to or for the benefit of the widow or children of the contributor, being contributions made under any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the pensions and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who administer justice.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salary and superannuation of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund, and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required to he so charged and issued or paid under any provision of the said Act.—

Resolution agreed to.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SALARY OF COMPTROLLER.)

6.41 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "four thousand five hundred" and to insert "five thousand."
This Amendment, and the one which accompanies it, in page 1, line 7, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in no case shall such salary be less than that of a Permanent Secretary to a Government Department other than the Treasury,
may, I hope, by agreement be discussed together. At least, I think that is the wish of the Financial Secretary. The Amendments are not, I regret to say, upon the Order Paper, owing to an omission, but are on a separate paper.

The Chairman: Both Amendments are, in fact, on the Order Paper, and I am agreeable to their being discussed together.

Mr. Pitman: I must explain to the Financial Secretary that, whereas I gave him notice that I would move an Amendment to the Bill to make the Comptroller and Auditor-General have the same sum of money to take home each week as he had in 1910, allowing, first, for the difference in taxation, and, secondly, for the very great difference in the purchasing power of the pound, I assure him that, on my calculation that 8s. 6d. now represents what 20s. was worth in those days, I worked it out and found that I should have had to put down an Amendment for £25,000 per annum for the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But it struck me that, whereas that might draw attention to the deplorable way in which the value


of money has altered since 1910, and the astonishing way in which taxation has risen to such a high level, it was not a very practical and constructive Amendment to put down. So I put down this Amendment that we should pay him £5,000 a year, instead of the £4,500 which is in the Bill.
Why have I chosen the figure of £5,000? I would like to refer the Financial Secretary and the Committee to paragraph 26 of the Chorley Committee's Report. There, under the heading of "Administrative," it is stated:
We recommend a salary of £4,500 for Permanent Secretaries. By comparison with the rates referred to in paragraph 23, with full allowance for differences in personal responsibility and in security of tenure, we should have wished to recommend £5,000 for the Permanent Heads of several Departments where we think the burden of responsibility is particularly heavy. We were however impressed by a weight of evidence which showed that an exceptional salary position would not have been welcomed by the officers in question, who place great value upon the sense of equality and the good understanding which now exist.
6.45 p.m.
I think I am right in saying that the Chorley Committee has really recommended £5,000 a year as the appropriate salary for the head of an important department, and the Financial Secretary has already said that he had chosen the figure of £4,500 because there was an understanding that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be paid on the same level as a Permanent Secretary of one of the important Departments. If I have got him wrong in that respect I hope he will correct me, because it is even more important that we should have a clear idea whether he is to follow the recommendations of the Chorley Committee as regards the Comptroller and Auditor-General being included, as he said, on the same level as the Permanent Secretary of an important Department, or whether he equates him with the Permanent Secretary of a minor Department.
It seems to me that the issue of team work does not here arise. It is highly creditable for the Permanent Secretaries to say that, in the interests of team work, it was invidious to pay them differential salaries and that they were insistent on being paid the lower figure. But that argument clearly does not apply in the

slightest to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who could and should be paid on the merits of his case. If he is to be within the same figure as a Permanent Secretary of a major Department, then, clearly, the whole Committee would admit that he should receive £5,000, as suggested in the Amendment, and not £4,500.
The next point I would make in favour of £5,000 is that the Chorley Committee is already two years out of date. Its Report gives an impressive list of people being paid £8,500 a year and very liberal expenses, which are shown in the Appendix on the back page. There have been a number of very high salaries added to that list, and inflationary pressure has increased during that time. I think it would not be at all out of place to argue. first, that even if we pay them on the plane of a minor Department the whole scale should, in these two years, have gone up, and that, even at £5,000 for the Comptroller and Auditor-General he is not, in any way, overpaid.
Further, the whole climate of public opinion in regard to the payment of Permanent Secretaries and important executives has altered enormously in the intervening years since the Chorley Committee reported. I think it is now felt that it is far better to pay these people a high salary such as they deserve and to cut out all the trouble of giving them free cars and having arguments about whether a wife should be permitted to go for a free ride in a Government car. We ought, on the other hand, to pay our people so that they can afford cars of their own if they want them, so that they will be able to take their wives out without asking or arguing with anybody about it.
I think there is one further extremely important and potent argument in this connection, and that is that the way in which Secretaries are paid in the Civil Service has stopped recruitment to the administrative class. Over the last four or five years, I think there have not been enough people for the posts offered, and, for the first time this year, the number of people who passed the examinations is, I am told, up to the number of posts offered. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 25 per cent. of those people who passed the examination and who were then offered the posts declined to accept them? It is a most important and sig-


nificant fact, and one which we ought to take very seriously into account, that the rates of remuneration paid to our civil servants are such that they do not attract sufficient entries for the examination nor induce the successful candidates to accept the posts offered.
I may say that most of those who would be suitable for the posts have gone into some tax free educational service or into business and have been lost to the British Civil Service, which I would say—

The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with the general question of the recruitment to and salaries of the Civil Service. He must restrict his remarks in that connection to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Pitman: On Second Reading, I put forward the argument that we recruited our Comptroller and Auditor-General as a gamekeeper from the poachers who are the spenders of the taxpayers' money in the Departments and that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's post is one of the plums to which people in the Civil Service look forward as the result of a successful career in what is a very glorious and famous Service.
I will not, however, elaborate the point because I think it is perfectly clear to the Committee as a whole that whether it is the Comptroller and Auditor-General or a Permanent Secretary with whom he is equated we have got the best civil servants in the world and are probably unique in giving them the worst pay. Therefore, I particularly recommend this Amendment to the Committee as putting right, at any rate in so far as one civil servant is concerned, a rate of remuneration which is an improvement on the rate put forward in the Bill.
I now come to the constitutional issue, which is that the House has always been very jealous that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be paid by the House and not by the Government. In fact, I think that is the only reason why I am allowed to move an Amendment to increase a payment out of the funds of His Majesty as, otherwise, it would be a Government expenditure and I should not be in order in moving such a charge on the funds. I am allowed to do it in this case because it is specifically a constitu-

tional point and one of which we are very jealous that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is the servant of the House.
Is it right that the Government, rather than the House, should determine the salary in this particular case? I think it is wrong in principle that it should be the hand of the Government that feeds the dog. The dog always looks to the hand that feeds him. Throughout the ages, in so far as offices of profit under the Crown or any of those other matters are concerned, we have always been extremely anxious that any payment to a person who is to watch the Executive shall be a payment made by the House in its capacity as a whole.

The Chairman: I think there must be some misunderstanding. The salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is based on the Consolidated Fund and not on the House of Commons' Vote and the matter is definitely one to be decided by the House. Therefore, I am not clear to what the hon. Gentleman's remarks are directed.

Mr. Pitman: I think I made it quite clear that I accepted the fact that it was based on the Consolidated Fund, but in the case of the Comptroller and Auditor-General there is something completely different from the payment made to anybody else in the Civil Service, in the military service or in any of the other Services which comes out of Governmental money. This is money which is voted by the House to its own servant. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, as I said just now, is the gamekeeper who is watching the poachers who are spending money on behalf of the House, and it is only right that his salary should be determined by the House and not by the Government.
I am really asking the Government whether they intend to put their Whips on for this Amendment, and I would like a clear answer from the Financial Secretary as to whether or not he is going to leave it to a free vote so that the Committee may decide what it will pay its own servant. If the Committee agrees, as I hope it will, that the salary should be paid, at any rate, in accordance with the recommendations of the Chorley Committee, then I trust it will support my Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I want a minute in which, if I may, not so much reinforce as emphasise the plea for maintaining, and, if possible, of enhancing at least the independence and dignity of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I do not know whether, in connection with the argument that it should rather be for the House than for the Treasury Bench to fix this salary, you, Major Milner, would allow me half a minute, perhaps on the very fringes of order, to question—that is, if the Financial Secretary does not mind; it is rather a technical point—whether the word "may" is appropriate here.
I know it is not strictly in order on this Amendment, but it is part of the same argument that the payment ought to be, and ought to be plainly seen to be, coming from the decision of the House and not from the decision of the Government. Of course, it would obviously be grossly indecent to put in a Bill that His Majesty "must" do this or that.
Whether this is one of the cases where "may"—the lawyers tell us that "may" has a compulsory effect—should be used, or whether, if not, we should consider, on the Report stage, some other form of words rather than this, which appears to leave it permissive to the Executive to pay the entire salary, seems to me to be a question which ought to be raised, although I apologise for raising it now when I am aware, that it is not strictly in order.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): In reply to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn), so far as I know, the word "may" is the customary and appropriate word to use in these cases, but I will certainly examine the point before the Report stage to see if there is any doubt whatever about it.
In reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), I wish to say, first of all, that I think there is no dispute between us about whether the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be decided by this House and charged on the Consolidated Fund. That is certainly the case—for good constitutional reasons. The hon. Member will recall that I said so myself in the Debate on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I think that the Government are perfectly entitled—and, indeed, it is their duty—to propose

to the House what they think the salary should be, and to ask the House to reach its decision accordingly.
The hon. Member for Bath is proposing that this salary should be raised from £4,500 to £5,000 a year. I rather thought, judging by his speech on Second Reading, that he was going to base that argument on his calculation of what we should have to pay in order that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should get the same income in real terms after taxation as he got in 1910. Had he argued that, I should have been compelled to point out, first, that there has been a certain redistribution of incomes in this country by taxation since 1910 which has affected all of us and not merely the Comptroller and Auditor-General or, indeed, senior civil servants, and, secondly, that the argument that we have got to increase any money income, however large, because there have been changes in the cost of living is, of course, the classic argument which leads to inflation. Therefore I should not have been very much impressed by those two arguments.
7.0 p.m.
I think the hon. Gentleman realised the weakness of both arguments when he calculated that a salary not of £5,000 but of something like £25,000 would have to be paid in order to reach that result. Therefore, as I understood him, the hon. Gentleman changed his ground and rested his case on paragraph 26 of the Chorley Report. He quoted one or two sentences from the earlier part of that paragraph which rather suggested that the Chorley Committee would have liked, on certain arguments, to have suggested a salary of £5,000 for a Permanent Secretary.

Mr. Pitman: Of a major department.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman, however, did not quote the sentence in which the Chorley Committee summed up their conclusions on this point, and which reads:
In the circumstances we think it better to recommend £4,500 for the whole range of posts now paid at £3,500.
That was the conclusion of the Committee, and that is, in effect, a proposal that the Comptroller and Auditor General's salary, like that of other Secretaries, should be raised to £4,500.

Mr. Pitman: It is quite clear in the early part of this paragraph that it was


only in the interest of team work as between heads of Departments that this equality arose at all. Their clear cut recommendation is that what they would have liked to have done was to pay £5,000 to some and £4,500 to the others.

Mr. Jay: Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that, ever since 1866, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been the same as that of the majority of Permanent Secretaries, it is perfectly fair to argue, in view of the sentence I have quoted, that, if we follow the general conclusions of the Chorley Committee, we are bound to propose a salary of £4,500.
I thought the hon. Gentleman's other argument was to the effect that the Chorley Committee's proposals altogether were out of date and, therefore, could not be quoted as authority for the proposal we are making. If I followed that argument far, I should also get out of order, because I should be led into a discussion of the salaries of civil servants generally and not simply that of the Comptroller. Therefore, I would only say again, that arguments based on changes in the cost of living over a very short period are very unsafe grounds for proposing immediate changes in salaries of this kind. It is, of course, precisely the argument that every money income must follow movements in prices which leads us to inflation.
Finally, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am bound to point out that his proposals are one further example of the Opposition although always enjoining economy on us, in practice proposing additional expenditure. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir Herbert Williams: I think the Financial Secretary slipped up in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). He said he would look into the question whether "may" means "may" or "shall" with a view to putting it right on the Report stage, if he finds that is necessary. If, as it is probable, this Bill goes through without Amendment, there will be no Report stage—

Mr. Pickthorn: I assumed that the Financial Secretary was going to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: —and, therefore, it might be necessary to do it in another place. It would be said in another place

that it is a matter of privilege, because to instruct His Majesty to make a payment is outside their purview. In view of that, the Financial Secretary had better think again, and think now.

The Chairman: I think the matter arose because, possibly, I was at fault. I should not have permitted the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) to raise a point on which he had not put down an Amendment, and which, to be raised at all, could only now be properly raised on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I hope the matter will not be taken further.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that that will almost compel me to ask you to permit it to be raised on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I thought I had made it clear at the time that I was not going to do that.

The Chairman: That might not be necessary.

Mr. Assheton: I think I am right in saying, Mr. Chairman, that you told the Committee that we were discussing two Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman). So far, we have only had an answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with respect to the first Amendment. As I hope that he may agree to the Amendment we have not yet discussed, it may be that there will still be a Report stage of this Bill. Therefore, I will not enter into the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) has raised.
On the first Amendment, I gathered from what the Financial Secretary has said that the Government are not prepared to accept it. In other words, they are not prepared to raise the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General to £5,000, instead of £4,500 as proposed in this Bill. The Financial Secretary commented that hon. Members on this side of the House were inclined to suggest increasing expenditure, whereas on other occasions they called for economy. The position we have always tried to make clear on the matter of payment to civil servants—and I am not proposing to get out of order by discussing that at any length—is that there are far too many civil servants, that the Government engage in far too many activities, but that we should like to pay those we have very


well indeed. I am quite certain that no one in this House would deny that the Comptroller and Auditor-General deserves a good salary and should get one, and I am sorry the Government have not seen fit to accept this first Amendment.
As to the second Amendment, which I hope the Financial Secretary and others in the House will think is a very sensible one, on this occasion we have to have a Bill specially to raise the salary of one individual man. That is not altogether a convenient method because, from time to time, the House is very busy, and it is not always easy to find time to fit in a Bill. I should have thought that there was something to be said for the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has put down, and which is to enable the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be raised when the salaries of civil servants of similar rank are raised generally.
That would avoid the necessity, on a future occasion, of having a special Bill introduced in this House and, at the same time, there is something to be said for that course as being convenient. I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would be good enough to tall the Committee whether he is able to accept the second Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), although not entirely carried out by this Amendment, is, in effect, that we should lay down in this Bill not that the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be any particular figure but that it should move with the salaries of Permanent Secretaries. If that were desired, the Amendment would have to be slightly different from what it is.

Mr. Pitman: My suggestion was not that it should move, and possibly go down, but that it should go up.

Mr. Jay: I think that makes the suggestion even less attractive. Nevertheless, the real objection which we see to the proposal implied in this Amendment—which has the effect that the Comptroller's salary should be decided, not by a Bill passed by this House, but by decisions taken from time to time by the Executive—is precisely the point which the hon. Member for Bath made earlier. If we

were to do that, then to some extent the Comptroller's salary at any given time would be decided by the Government without reference to this House, in so far as they decided to raise the salaries of higher civil servants—and I agree that it is not the case if the salaries were lowered, which is perhaps not quite so probable. Therefore, although I think it is an arguable proposition and some grounds can be advanced for doing it in the other way, on the whole we prefer to make not the slightest infringement of the constitutional principle that the Comptroller's salary should be decided by the House and not in any way by the Executive, the Government.

Mr. Assheton: If the Financial Secretary thinks that the constitutional position of the House would be infringed in the slightest way, then I should not ask him, to accept this Amendment. I had hoped that the ingenious Parliamentary counsels which are at his disposal would have been able to find some way of achieving the object of the Amendment without in any way infringing the constitutional position of the House. If that cannot be done I, for one, should be bound to agree with him.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not sure whether I shall be out of order to raise the question again, but I should like to put this point quite distinctly. Perhaps I may raise it on the Question that the Clause stand part.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, at the end to insert:
Provided that in no case shall such salary he less than that of a Permanent Secretary to a Government Department other than the Treasury.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to raise the point again and I shall be extremely quick. The Financial Secretary said just now that he was very anxious to preserve the constitutional principle that the salary is fixed by the House and nothing but the House. Upon that principle, the question I shall put to him is this. Is he quite certain that the words "His Majesty may" in this Clause and, again, I think in Clause 2, do not in fact give some chance of the decision being taken other than by this House?
To put it in another way, can we be assured that His Majesty's Ministers cannot conceive of His Majesty's advisers, whether themselves or others, advising against the payment of the salary as indicated in this Bill, because unless they can answer that question quite categorically they are doing what the Financial Secretary has said he is particularly anxious not to do—that is, whittling down the constitutional principle that the payment should depend entirely upon this House and nothing but this House and should not depend upon His Majesty's advisers.
I hope I have put the question plainly. I apologise, for it may well be that there are technical reasons why the answer to it is quite obvious. The answer is not plain to me. I hope I have put the question plainly and that the Financial Secretary will answer it plainly.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I should like to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), because so often in these days we find we are passing merely enabling Bills—Bills in which we are not making the final decision ourselves, as the public generally expect us to do, but are giving the power to somebody else to make it. In this case, one has to speak with great deference and respect because the power is given, in the terms of the Bill, to His Majesty. At the same time, the principle remains the same. We know, after all, that His Majesty will be advised by a responsible Minister and that that Minister will take responsibility for whatever decision His Majesty reaches in this matter. But this is a question of public finance and, in such matters more especially, should there not be not an enabling Bill but a Bill in which the House takes the final decision? It is important, therefore, that my hon. Friend should have an answer to the point he made.

Mr. Jay: I am advised that in practice this wording leaves no discretion in the hands of the Executive to vary the salary. It may be of interest to both hon. Members to know that the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866 reads in precisely the same way, in Section 4:
Her Majesty may by such letters patent grant to the persons therein …
and so forth. In fact, the salary has never been varied from the figure in the relevant statute. I am advised that the only reason why the word "may" is used is that it

is the appropriate form of words in a Clause where the Sovereign is mentioned.

Mr. Pitman: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and others in the House are very interested in this question of the principle of the introduction of legislation in order to increase remuneration of this kind. May we have an assurance from the Financial Secretary that, in opposing the second Amendment which I put down, he intends that the Government should introduce any such legislation if and when it should be desired?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPERANNUATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for disregarding certain temporary abatements of salary in calculating gratuities under sections thirty-nine and forty of the Superannuation Act, 1949, and allowances and gratuities of officers mentioned in Part t of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925; and for reckoning as unestablished service certain service in the armed forces and other similar service performed by persons recruited to the Civil Service by reconstruction competitions after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable which is attributable to provisions of the said Act—

(a) requiring temporary abatements of pay or salary made for the purpose of effecting economy in national expenditure to be disregarded, as from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, in calculating gratuities payable to persons employed in the Civil Service in an unestablished capacity and allowances or gratuities payable to or in respect of the holders of offices specified in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925;
(b) enabling persons entering the Civil Service after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty, by means of reconstruction competitions to reckon as service in an unestablished capacity for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts previous service since the second day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, in the Armed Forces of the Crown and the other organisations referred to in section one of the Supreannuation Act, 1946.

Resolution agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NOTICES OF AMENDMENTS

Standing Order 39 (Notices of Amendments, etc.) read.

7.20 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, as an Amendment to Standing Order No. 39, in line 11, to leave out paragraph (2).
I do not think that this Amendment is controversial. The effect of it is to prevent the tabling of Amendments to Bills before the Second Reading has taken place—that is to say, in the case of Amendments which would be taken in Committee to prevent them being tabled before the Second Reading has taken place. This merely re-establishes prewar practice. During the war there was a great need for expedition in legislation. Moreover, there were always possibilities of material delays in printing. For those reasons a practice was introduced whereby Amendments could be tabled before the Second Reading, so that the House had better notice of them. We varied the practice from Session to Session by the inclusion of the provision in Standing Orders on 4th November, 1947.
Experience has indicated that the admission of Committee Amendments before Second Reading has a slight tendency to divert discussion on the occasion of the Second Reading to Committee points rather than to Second Reading points. We think that, on the whole, it is best to revert to the pre-war practice. I understand that that is also Mr. Speaker's view as the result of his observations on our proceedings. I gather that this is not regarded as controversial, and I hope the House will be so good as to accept it.

Mr. Assheton: This is one of the pre-war practices which we

are very glad to see restored. I think the point which the Lord President made was a very sound one and one with which I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are also in sympathy. On this side of the House we have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. David Renton: I wonder whether the Lord President, with the leave of the House, would reply to a question I should like to ask. I have, of course, a comparatively recent membership of the House—only for the last five years—and I do not remember the pre-war practice. In his brief introduction of the Amendment the Lord President mentioned only Committee Amendments. We have also what are called reasoned Amendments which are put down against Second Reading. If there is a technical distinction between Committee Amendments and reasoned Amendments, perhaps this would be an occasion for clarifying the point and making it clear that reasoned Amendments are not in any way affected by this proposal.

Mr. Morrison: If I have permission to address the House again, I would explain that the Amendments to which I referred, are Amendments to a Bill on the Committee stage. Reasoned Amendments, of course, are Amendments to the Motion for Second Reading and they are not in the least affected. The only Amendments which are affected by this proposal are those taken in Committee on a Bill on the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY (COMPENSATION)

7.25 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 27th July, 1950, entitled the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Valuation) (Amendment) Regulations. 1950 (S.I. 1950 No. 1265), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be annulled.
This Prayer is being moved tonight because this is the last available day for that to be done. From my calculations, the necessary 39 days on which the Order lies will be completed by midnight to-


night. On the last occasion on which I was engaged in moving a Prayer we were discussing the manufacture of sausages. Tonight we have had sausages—legislative sausages—in the making. I have not seen the Serjeant at Arms work so much overtime for a long time. It looks as though the Chief Whip has really not a substantial supply with which to keep us going, and that is why the meat in the sausages is so poor.
I hope hon. Members have read the First Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was ordered by the House to be printed on 13th November. I forget how soon it was available. I do not think I saw it until 14th November, and it was not until 15th November—I think it was—that I realised the importance of this Report. The Committee considered the Order to which my Prayer relates—No. 1265—and they did not quite understand it. I am in the same position. There were quite a lot of them at the meeting.
If hon. Members will look at page 4 they will see that there were no less than nine Members present, and they had the attendance of Mr. Speaker's Counsel. So there were nine hon. Members, some of them learned in the law, and Mr. Speaker's Counsel, and they examined this Order and they did not understand it. They have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that they did not understand it; I do not understand it, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member who has got a copy in his hands understands it—except possibly the Parliamentary Secretary, and he has been instructed in the matter by somebody or other, who must be very intelligent.
If hon. Members will look at the Report they will see that on 13th November a letter was addressed to them by the Principal Assistant Solicitor of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Ministry of Fuel and Power Branch. That is a new one on me. Apparently the Ministry of Fuel and Power are not entrusted with a solicitor, and they have the Treasury Solicitor and a special branch. I think that if any Department needs a special branch—[interruption.] When I was at the Board of Trade we did not need a special branch solicitor like that. This is one of those new developments.
The Committee had this letter written to them on 13th November. They must have read it that day, because they refer

to it. They say they considered the matter and the Memorandum from the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and then they resolved that the special attention of the House should be drawn to the Instruments on the ground that
their form and purport call for elucidation.
It is obviously of no use to us to set up a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and instruct them to report to this House unless some hon. Members take the trouble to debate the matters to which they draw attention: and the only way we can do that is by moving the annulment. That does not necessarily mean that one desires to vote against the thing—which a lot of hon. Members opposite are not sufficiently instructed to understand. The object of a Prayer is very often not to destroy an Instrument but to have a debate on it and to clear up matters of difficulty.
I have read the letter referred to, and I shall read out one sentence of it. Apparently this is a problem that arises where a coal mine is nationalised and there is other property hanging around it, and it is not quite clear how the thing should be valued if the other property is rather necessary to the coal mine. I believe that they have worked out something which I do not understand. There is one paragraph which interests me very much. It says:
It might he impossible to maintain the output of the colliery without suitable housing for the workers so that without assurance of the continued availability of the houses the value of the colliery might he diminished. Under the Regulation provision is made for valuation on the basis that the purchaser of the colliery would be in a position to use the houses.
Hon. Members opposite are very busy denouncing tied cottages, but this is a proposal that cottages should be tied to certain collieries. Presumably, if a man ceased to work at the colliery he would vacate his house. Obviously, if a man ceases to work at the colliery he is given notice to leave his house. That is the tied cottage principle. This Principal Assistant Solicitor, Treasury Solicitor Department, Ministry of Fuel and Power Branch, writes a legal letter, but at least must have had the assent to it of his political superiors.
The Minister of Fuel and Power had a great deal of trouble at Question Time, which is possibly the reason why he is not here tonight, though he had sent what


the blacksmiths call a "striker." He has sent his "striker" along tonight—his assistant, his plumber's mate—or whatever they call him; he is here tonight. However, I cannot imagine this Principal Assistant Solicitor writing this letter without the authority of the political heads of the Department. In his letter he has written this declaration, that in certain cases tied cottages are necessary for coal miners. I do not own a tied cottage. I do not own my own cottage. I do not live in one. I live in a flat. However, that is in passing. It is very interesting to find this declaration from a Government Department, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will take notice of this very clear declaration of policy on the part of the Ministry in favour of tied cottages.
That part of his letter I do understand. I am afraid I do not quite understand the other part. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is going to second this Motion, and he may have studied the other aspects of the letter and may be able to inform the House on them. I myself fail to understand it. However, I think I have said enough to justify our moving this Prayer and initiating a debate on this Statutory Instrument; I hope that in due course the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give that elucidation which nine Members of this Honourable House could not give. Those Members belong to all political parties. There is no partisanship in this. We are entitled to that elucidation, and I hope that we shall get it.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to second the Motion.
Two things seem to me unsatisfactory about the way in which this matter is presented to the House. As my hon. Friend pointed out, these Regulations were the subject of a Report by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, who said that the attention of the House should be drawn to them because they wanted elucidation. But they referred only to the Regulations as a whole, and they also asked, as my hon. Friend said, the Minister of Fuel and Power to explain them. It is only when we read the Memorandum from the Principal Assistant Solicitor of the Ministry of Fuel and Power that we find it is only one Regulation which the

Select Committee found obscure. That was Regulation 2. My first point is that it seems to me unsatisfactory that the Committee should leave us in the dark as to what it was they wanted explaining. We can learn that only from the Memorandum.
My second point is this. If hon. Members will turn to the last page of the Select Committee's Report they will find that the Committee had the Memorandum of the Ministry of Fuel and Power before them before they resolved that the attention of the House should specially be drawn to this Instrument on the ground that it required elucidation. Well, they were apparently either dissatisfied with the Memorandum, or they were debarred by their own rules from expressing their opinion whether it was satisfactory or not.

Mr. David Renton: May I attempt to assist my hon. Friend? I happened to be on this particular occasion a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I do not think I shall be out of order if, without referring to what happened on this occasion, I state the general practice. The general practice is this, that if we are in doubt we call for a memorandum from the Minister. When that memorandum comes, sometimes our doubts are removed; if our doubts are not removed then we proceed to report the matter to the House, and state one or other of the six grounds on which we are allowed to report a matter, as being the reason why we do so. That was done on this occasion.

Mr. Keeling: That confirms my opinion, and I believe my hon. Friend will agree with me that the whole thing is a little obscure. It seems to me that if the Select Committee can express an opinion on a Statutory Instrument they ought to be allowed to express an opinion on the Memorandum which purports to explain it; but as it is, they have reported the Instrument to the House, and they have reported the Memorandum to the House, and we are entirely in the dark whether they find the Memorandum a satisfactory explanation or not. For these two reasons, the Committee is not the help to the House that it ought to be.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Bell (Bucks, South): I support my hon. Friends who have moved this Motion. As both my hon. Friends have


said, the Select Committee which reported these Regulations had the advantage of studying the memorandum presented to them by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Apparently it did not remove their doubts or enlighten their darkness, because after seeing it they still reported these Regulations to the House on the grounds that their form and purport required elucidation. I think it was Regulation 2 of these Regulations which was the one which excited difficulty in the Select Committee, and I must say it is a remarkable exercise in obscurity.
I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry on his courage in coming here tonight to explain, as he obviously is going to do, exactly what these Regulations mean. I will admit that after about half-an-hour of study, and a necessary break for rest and refreshment, I do know what they mean; but it is arguable that regulations should be drafted in such a manner that their meaning can be discovered rather less painfully than by the process which, for the benefit of myself, I went through.

Mr. Messer: Would the hon. Member put lawyers out of work?

Mr. Bell: I entirely disclaim any such intention as the hon. Member attributes to me. I quite agree that one must not be unreasonable in one's approach to this matter. These are, of course, Regulations concerning the method of calculating compensation for the coal industry, and, of course, are a matter upon which the persons affected by it will have professional advice. They are not regulations affecting the liberty of the subject or something like that; in which case one would apply a very much higher standard of simplicity. It is a regulation where some complexities may reasonably be expected, but I do suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House that in this case obscurity has really gone beyond the bounds of reason. There is a certain fascination in these Regulations. Some of them are rather like chess problems—very advanced ones: Black to move and mate in 20 moves. I do not want to spoil the amusement of anyone who finds pleasure in working out these Regulations.
However, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary some of the reasons why I think these Regulations are so extremely obscure. Perhaps he would be

good enough to look at Regulation 2. He will see in the second line of sub-paragraph 2 the words
comprised in a compensation unit.
The sentence reads:
If the Valuation Board are satisfied that the property in which a transferred interest comprised in a compensation unit subsisted was, before transfer, used in association with other assets in which any transferred interest subsisted….
I defy anyone to read that sentence and to know for quite a long time what it means. There are far too many things piled one on top of another. I suggest that the words "comprised in a compensation unit" should be dropped. They are quite meaningless. Every transferred interest is comprised in a compensation unit, and even if it is not, it does not matter, because nothing turns on that in this case. These words only increase the complexity. Because somewhere else in the Regulations, earlier on, it is stated that for the purposes of compensation the assets will be divided between the compensation units, wherever the draftsman has had to deal with a transferred interest, he talks about
a transferred interest comprised in a compensation unit.
I think that may, therefore, well be dropped. I then suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that sub-paragraph 2 (b) increases the difficulty, because there the expression that
it would be conducive to a fair and equitable valuation
is in fact governed by the word "satisfied" in the first line, a long way back. I do not think that for the first half-hour's study of the Regulations anyone would realise that.
Finally, in the last line of the Regulation, a word which caused me a lot of trouble for a long time was "were." It should be "are." The word "were" clearly refers back to the time before transfer. It does not mean to, but it does. What is meant is that the Valuation Board shall value the compensation unit which comprises the last-mentioned transferred interest on the basis of those assets being available for such use. The sense of the thing is this: Asset A is to be valued on the basis that it can be used with asset B, and, therefore, as a corollary of that, asset B is to be valued on the basis that it is going to be used in association with asset A.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this, he will realise that the word "were" really refers back in time logically to before the transfer, whereas what is intended is not that at all. It should read in fact something like this: They shall value asset B on the basis that it is being used or that it would be used in association with asset A. It is not correct to say that they should value asset A on the basis that it "was" used with asset B. That introduces a further element of confusion, which does eventually become clear, if one spends a lot of time chopping this down, as one would in translating a Latin unseen.
I now draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to a matter not of form but of merit, namely, the fact that the Regulation only refers to transferred assets which are going to be used in association with other transferred assets. That appears from line 4 of Subparagraph (2). A transferred asset is to be valued on the basis that it was used in association with other assets in which no transferred interest existed. That this is so appears again from the third line from the bottom of the page, where there appear the words:
as the holder of the claimant's transferred interest therein.
That is a point of substance because in Section 13 (4) which the Parliamentary Secretary will find on page 3 of the Select Committee's Report, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act gave to the Minister the power to make regulations to ensure that a transferred asset shall be valued upon the basis that it had been used before transfer in association with other assets. The Regulation narrows the scope of the Compensation. I think that it is a matter of some importance, because one could have assets which had been transferred used in association with other assets which were not transferred. The value of the transferred assets might depend almost entirely on their use in association with the non-transferred assets.
As the Regulation stands, in that case, the owner of the transferred assets could not get compensation on the larger basis which the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act clearly intended. It may be that this is inadvertent, or it may be that it is proposed to reduce the compensation payable, in which case I would suggest to the Minister that it is not right that that

should be done by regulations when the Act clearly envisaged a wider scope of compensation.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take back this Regulation and redraft it in language which any normal person can understand with reasonable diligence and in a sober state of mind—I do not put it too high. I think that he could do that without fear that he is damaging the earnings of my profession. The people affected would still have to come to us to make sure. A regulation like this one which is before the House and which is going to become law should not contain any unnecessary obscurities. For these various reasons—of which prolixity is the greatest—this regulation does contain too much obscurity.

7.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am certain that the speech of the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell), has now made crystal clear to the House what these Regulations really mean. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who opened this Debate gave me two more titles—a plumber's mate and a blacksmith's striker—which I can now add to the one which the right hon. Member for Bourne-mouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) gave me when the Gas Bill was under consideration and when he described me as a lonely carbonised Casabianca. I am gradually acquiring a very large number of additional names.
The hon. Member for Bucks, South, raised one or two points which I will deal with if I may before I go on to do what the mover of the Motion requested me to do, and that was to elucidate the obscurity of these Regulations. He referred to "were" as not being the correct word to use; but the word "were" is used because it throws this back to the vesting day which is of course the date of the valuation, and therefore I think that "were" in that context was right. We continue to use the phrase "comprised in a compensation unit" because these words define with absolute certainty the assets to be dealt with.
These Regulations do two things: Regulation 2 is concerned with the valuation of property in a compensation unit on the basis that the assets formerly


used in association with but not in that compensation unit would continue to be available for such use. As the hon. Gentleman knows, compensation units are divided into four or five classes. There are the main units comprising the principal assets—collieries, brickworks and so on. Stocks and stores are another unit, and railway wagons are another unit. The main units contain assets falling within the global sum—that is the collieries, etc.; and subsidiary assets receiving compensation outside the global sum such as farms and houses.
It will now become apparent that we have a situation where, for example, a colliery company formerly owned both a colliery and coke ovens on an adjacent site. For compensation purposes, the colliery and the coke ovens may well be grouped in different compensation units. Clearly, it is reasonable to value these two assets on the basis that they are still associated, because the coke ovens may well be worth more on the assumption that they are to be assured of a supply of suitable quality coal close at hand, than on the assumption that the coke ovens are separate and the suitable quality of coal is not available. Accordingly, when the regulations were first made in June, 1947, provision was made for valuing compensation units on the basis that the property in these units could continue to be used in association with other assets.
For convenience, we refer to this basis of valuation as valuation on the basis of "continuing availability." In the original regulations, valuation on the basis of continuing availability could only be made where the claimant requested it. Under the present Regulations, it can also be made on the application of any other party to the proceedings, but only if the Valuation Board is satisfied that it would be conducive to a fair and equitable valuation of the property. This is the main difference between these regulations and the regulations of June, 1947. The circumstances in which the purchaser on the assumed sale of the unit "would be in a position to use" the other assets, are specifically stated "as the holder of the claimant's interests therein."
This provision, where property is valued on the basis that the purchaser is in a position to use assets in association with it brings in miners' houses, but has

nothing to do with the principle of a tied house. The purpose is to find out what is the value of the houses and of the colliery. It may well be that the colliery with houses around it would be worth more than the colliery with houses owned by someone else and let to anyone. Therefore, it is important for purposes of valuation to regard the ownership of the houses in association with the pit, and vice versa, if we are to get a proper valuation of the colliery, on the one hand, and the houses, on the other.

Mr. Renton: I have been following this argument very closely, and it seems to me that there must have been cases, which these Regulations are designed to meet, in which houses formerly owned by the former owners of the colliery have not been taken over by the National Coal Board. If that is so, it explains, to a certain extent, the reason for these rather obscure Regulations, and the method of valuation based on severance which has been adopted. It comes to me, and I am sure it will do so to many other Members, as a very great surprise to learn that collieries have been taken over without their houses. It is only by means of these Regulations that this has come to light. Perhaps we might have an explanation of that.

Mr. Robens: I would not come to that conclusion on what I have said, that collieries have been taken over without houses. We are trying to establish the basis of compensation.
Perhaps I might enlarge on the illustration. Let us assume that we have a miners' village in the wilds, with the houses occupied by the men who work in the pit. They would not be houses for other purposes, in point of fact, because of the isolated nature of the colliery. If we take the houses over on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller, there would be a very different value as against taking them over in association with the colliery.
That is the point I have been trying to make. It seems to me that it will help rather than hinder the valuation to be placed on the particular assets. It also works the other way round. A colliery without houses would be less in value than the colliery with houses. Therefore, we say that we must take into consideration, in these compensation units, the association of the other assets being


transferred. I hope that I have made that clear.

Mr. Bell: Is not the position that if the colliery were taken over without the houses, we could not assess the compensation for the colliery upon the assumption that the houses were available for use with the colliery, because the houses would not be an asset in which the interest was transferred?

Mr. Robens: I do not think the hon. Member is following me closely enough. As some of my hon. Friends behind me, who do not belong to the legal profession, seem to be following me, I should have thought that the hon. Member would have seen the point I am trying to make. The colliery compensation comes from the global sum, and the other assets have to be valued. Therefore, there is a difference. The global sum has been fixed, although I do not want to go into the details, which are well known, and is divided into districts, with the districts deciding the value of each colliery. When we come to find a valuation for the other assets for which no global um is fixed, we must value the houses as though the colliery were still part and parcel of them, although they are not a separate compensation unit.

Sir H. Williams: Surely the object is to enable them to be taken over in association with the colliery?

Mr. Robens: The object is to enable a fair compensation value to be placed on these other assets, which can only be done if we associate them with the use to which they were put.

Sir H. Williams: Who is taking them over?

Mr. Robens: The State, or the National Coal Board.

Sir H. Williams: Then they are tied houses.

Mr. Robens: I should not jump to the conclusion that they will always be tied cottages. The hon. Member may be in for a surprise about miner's houses in due course, but that is a subject for another debate.

Mr. Bell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with the point I made about the compensation provision only applying to assets used in association with other assets which are to be transferred?

My example about a colliery and houses may not perhaps have been a good one, because the colliery compensation comes out of the global sum. Will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to my point in regard to assets which are to be transferred used in conjunction with other assets which are not to be transferred?

Mr. Robens: It is only the assets which are being transferred that are to be valued. There is no point in valuing assets which are not to be transferred.

Mr. Bell: The Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood me. I am asking what is to happen in the case of valuation of assets which are being transferred and which owe their value to the fact that they are used with other assets which are not being transferred. It is those words which limit the effects of these Regulations to assets which before transfer were used in association with other assets "in which any transferred interest subsists." These words do not appear in the Act, but do appear in these Regulations.

Mr. Robens: I think that the hon. Gentleman has added confusion to a very interesting and enlightening Debate. As I have indicated, the compensation units are divided into five groups. No collieries will be broken down to less than two compensation units, and some will be five. Wherever there has to be a relation between the transferred asset and assets which were formerly in the use of the colliery company, in accordance with the Regulations that assessment will be made. I do not see that I could make this any clearer than to go on saying that what we are trying to establish is a fair valuation and that we cannot do that unless we associate what we are transferring with its previous use, whether transferred or not.

Mr. Bell: I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to do that. I understand exactly what he is saying—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He must ask the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Robens: Regulations 3 and 4 make the Coal Board a party to all proceedings before the valuation boards, and give it the right to apply for a review of the determinations of those boards and to be a party to the review if a review is asked


for any other person. The June, 1947, Regulations did not make the National Coal Board a party to the proceedings and that decision was taken, very largely, because at that time the Coal Board already had a very heavy burden in taking over production and other matters in connection with the industry. So the Ministry, who were parties to the proceedings, called in from time to time as their advisers and their technical experts the Coal Board itself.
Now the Coal Board is brought in as a party to the proceedings for two very important reasons. One is that all the compensation indirectly forms the capital of the National Coal Board, and, very naturally, the Coal Board has an interest in the result. Secondly, the Coal Board alone has the special knowledge on many matters at issue. The Board asked for the right to be heard on their own account instead of merely on behalf of the Minister and it seemed to us that there was no good reason for withholding that right.
Whether the merits of the Regulations are obscure or not, it is certain that their object is to improve the compensation procedure, and that is an aim which should commend itself to the House. While the Regulations may appear obscure to the average individual, it should be recognised that they concern only the former coal owners and the National Coal Board, and I am certain that, with all the legal advice and everything else that the Mining Association and the National Coal Board have, the Regulations are perfectly clear to those bodies. I agree, and I well understand, that they appear to be obscure, but, after all, the matter of compensation for the coal industry is very complicated, and unless one is familiar with the whole of the procedure from the very beginning it is impossible for any regulation like this, which deals with only one aspect of the matter, to be crystal-clear without very great study. I am not a lawyer, but I hope that I have been able to put this into simple English, and have persuaded the House that what we are doing is really very clear, and that the House will pass the Regulation.

8.5 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: Under our Rules I have a right of reply. The Parliamentary Secretary said that someone had called

him "Casabianca" and he reminded me of Casabianca when he stood alone on the burning deck. The rest of the words I will not repeat, but he read his brief with great vitality. I wish that I were satisfied that he understood it as clearly as did the gentlemen who prepared the written document.[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] That is a perfectly proper observation to make. Hon. Members do not seem to realise that we are supposed to debate here, and, although Standing Orders permit one to make reference to one's notes, one is not supposed to read speeches. It is a bad habit.

Mr. Robens: I am prepared to hand over my notes and to defy the hon. Member to compare them with HANSARD and say that I was reading them. I was not.

Sir H. Williams: I have never seen an hon. Gentleman who was not reading his speech have his eyes so fixed on the Despatch Box the whole time he was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] I am not going to be suppressed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member should take off his glasses."] I am putting on my glasses because on looking at the Report of the Select Committee I observe that five out of the nine who were present were lawyers. Three of the lawyers belonged to the Labour Party, one was a Conservative and the other was a National Liberal. Having had the explanation of the legal gentlemen attached to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, they still resolved that the matter required elucidation. I do not suppose that a single hon. Member opposite who was jeering a moment ago could, if questioned outside, give me a coherent interpretation of the regulation. It would do hon. Gentlemen a lot of good if they would occasionally try to listen to the Debate and try to understand it instead of indulging in jeers which have no significance.
The Debate has served a useful purpose. It will make the Ministry much more careful in drafting orders. It is our duty to make sure that these documents which have the effect of law and may have to come before the courts for interpretation are put in language which is as clear as possible to all concerned, and if the Debate will have that effect it will have served a very good purpose. As to the merits of the Regulations, I am not sufficiently well informed about the circumstances to express a judgment. I do not


propose to withdraw the Motion; it can be negatived. However, we have been thoroughly justified in drawing the attention of the House to the Report of its own Select Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kenneth Robinson.]

HOUSING COSTS

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I am glad that there is a little more time than usual tonight for the Adjournment Debate because there is a great deal of interest in the subject which I wish to raise. I have described it as "How to reduce housing costs." For this purpose I intend to deal in particular with two aspects of housing. I am not now concerned about the targets of our opponents or ourselves; what I am concerned about is the fact that the standards which have been laid down and very largely agreed to by the idealists, the housing authorities and others who posed as authorities on housing in the past, are rather extravagant in the use of land as well as in the use of material.
The two items with which I intend to deal are density per acre of housing and the need for terraced house building. Generally speaking, 12 houses to the acre has been considered the ideal for the past generation or more. I am informed that the maximum of 14 houses to the acre is now permitted by the Ministry.
For several years I was vice-chairman of my local authority housing committee and during that period I was faced with difficulties which, though perhaps not so bad as present difficulties, were certainly very bad. In 1928, 1929 and 1930 we had permission to increase the density per acre and in those years built up to 26 to the acre—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Someone said "shame." Well, we had about 14 more at least per acre than would have been possible with a density of 12 to the acre, because land is a factor in this matter. If we intend to continue with a density of 12 to the acre, or even 14 to the acre, there will not be enough land available in this country to re-house the people. Certainly to the extent which we spread over the countryside we will

reduce agricultural opportunities for providing the nation with food. There is no doubt that all local authorities now have to use agricultural land for housing. No one can grumble, because the people have to be housed.
I suggest that what can be done is to build up to at least 20 houses per acre as against the 14 maximum now permitted. On an average, I suppose, that is rather more than 50 per cent. over the existing density. I repeat that 20 years ago I saw built 24, 25 and 26 houses to the acre. I speak quite frankly about this. I am not a builder, a bricklayer, or joiner, but I am capable of relying on others and using my commonsense in this matter as, no doubt, are other hon. Members who have had experience of local authority housing.
For some houses which are now being built under the density of 14 to the acre, not more than 126 square yards are being used for the ground in front, the house and the ground at the rear. That would permit of nine feet in the front of the house as a garden, 30 feet for the house, and 15 feet in the rear. That is a total of 54 feet, or 18 yards. If we allowed 21-foot frontage—seven yards—and multiplied the 18 yards by seven we would get 126 square yards and that is about the amount used now for three- or four-bed roomed houses. At 20 to the acre that brings it up to 2,520 yards, which is rather more than half the acre. So that leaves 2,320 yards for the backs and the fronts of the houses. I know folk are worrying about road frontages, but nearly half the acre is left, and I estimate that with 20 houses in a row we could allow 45 or 48 yards for pavement and roads in front of those houses.
What would this change of density from 14 to 20 houses actually save? It would reduce the cost of the ground rent per house. Twenty years ago we paid 5s. or 7s. a yard for land in an urban area, and today it is 10s. a yard. At that figure it runs at between £22 and £24 per acre, but if there are only 14 houses, it will amount to about £8 or £9 per year interest cost. According to the increase in the number of houses the ground rent is reduced. In addition, with an increased density of building there is a saving on roads. If I could persuade the Ministry, as quite frankly I would like to do, to build 24 houses to the acre, the saving


would be considerable in road charges and services generally.
I know that semi-detached houses built at the rate of 12 to the acre or less look very nice, but it is costly and wasteful so far as the land is concerned. I want hon. Members to consider what it will mean eventually to the land if we continue to build at that rate. Terraced houses should be built as they have been built before, but I know this is not looked upon favourably by the Ministry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): If my hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt on a point of correction, may I say not only has terraced house-building been looked upon favourably by my Department, but over a long period we have been encouraging local authorities to build groups of houses.

Mr. Keenan: I am very glad that is to be encouraged. I know some local authorities are doing it, but I was not aware that they were getting any encouragement. I hope that it will be continued and that the Ministry will insist upon local authorities doing the same in cases where they do not appear to be responding.
I would draw a comparison between terraced houses and semi-detached houses. A semi-detached house has three walls. If there is a group of four there are five walls. If six terraced houses are put up there are seven walls; and if eight are erected there are nine or 10 walls, because usually there is a passage in the centre which necessitates another wall. I contend that that kind of change in the building programme, with terraced houses instead of semi-detached, provides at least an opportunity for saving in material and labour. People who live in terraced houses do not worry about whether there are six, eight or 10 or more. I am living in a terraced house which was erected a long time ago. It is one of the largest houses in Bootle. In fact most of the houses there are terraced houses and quite good property, and I personally am not opposed to the terraced house.
The Ministry may be worried about the increased density, because it does not provide sufficient space. But I think that on the communal basis which terraced houses are likely to provide there could be more economy in land than in the case of semi-

detached houses. Even with semidetached houses, however, I should still insist upon 20 houses to the acre. I do not intend to say much about the question of supplies. We know that if supplies are arranged adequately so that there is no hold-up, and the job can go along smoothly, housing costs may be reduced.
One matter has been put up to me by builders, and concerns the question of houses built on built-up land. I know I am not likely to get much encouragement from the Ministry on this point, but I ventilate it because of its costliness. In some cases where houses are built upon built-up land it is necessary to build the foundations right up to floor space, because no timber is allowed for the floor. Builders tell me that in some cases this means spending as much as £60 or £70 to fill up. They suggest that this cost could be avoided if it were possible to get more timber. Those who have more knowledge of the subject than I, maintain that one-third of a standard would be all that was necessary to do this, and that would be a decided saving as compared with the £60 or £70 which the present operation frequently costs.
For the benefit of the Ministry I have taken the trouble to obtain a few photographs of the kind of houses to which I refer. I know that in the part of Liverpool which I represent, like most industrial areas, there are 50 or 60 houses to the acre. I do not accept that in the building of terraced houses it is necessary to create slums. Slums are not created by the type of house into which we put people. The photographs which I have obtained indicate clearly what can be and should be done. In Bootle there is a site with 24 houses to the acre; one of 17, another of 16 and several of 20, which I think compare very favourably with anything I have seen elsewhere.
Other people may be able to suggest how housing costs may be cut in other directions, but I do not want to reduce the standard which has now been achieved, either in the capacity of the house, the space within, or in any of the fitments which it has been considered should be put into the modern house and which are an improvement upon what went before All I wish to say in that connection is that a builder suggested to me that 7 ft. 6 in. was high enough. I said. "I do not agree with you I think


we should get up to 9 ft. as is generally demanded." He said, "That is all right but unless you alter the layout of the windows to correspond with it you may as well have the low ceiling." I quote that for what it is worth.
I believe that by this method of increasing the density we shall be able to reduce land costs. We would be able to reduce cost by building terraced houses. I do not think that there is any need to reduce in any way the standard of accommodation we provide, although I know there are a number of people who will say that there must be gardens at the back and at the front. Whilst I know that is desirable, the people today who want houses do not care whether there are gardens round them or not. What they are more concerned about is that they should get homes in which to live.
I know the difficulty, but I was talking in the same strain about this subject 30 years ago. The problem was not solved then, when the economic conditions were different and more favourable for its solution than they are now. By the means that I have suggested we may be able to make the cost of housing cheaper. How far that will be able to increase the number I cannot say, and I am not necessarily dealing with that side of the subject tonight. What I am concerned about is to get costs reduced, because it is generally agreed that rents are prohibitive largely through costliness of housing. If we can produce more by this means it will be a great contribution to the housing programme.
Another difficulty is land. If I had my way we should soon solve that problem. The land belongs to the people and they should have it. However, we are not concerned with that issue tonight. All I wanted to do was to recommend to the Ministry of Health a few ideas, which, though perhaps not put very well together, do suggest some way of dealing with housing costs.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: We should all be obliged to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) for raising the subject tonight. Many Members want to speak on this vital issue and I shall be brief. I want to say a word or two about slum clearance. Looking back on the

past, I do not believe that anyone wanted to build a slum. Many of them came into being through bad planning, and through trying to build too many houses per acre. It would be a great mistake if we fell into that same mistake again. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member about gardens. The average person wants a garden about his house. People take a great deal of pleasure in growing their own flowers and vegetables, and perhaps keeping—I know how difficult it is to feed chickens—rabbits and that sort of thing. People want their own gardens.
I have only one suggestion to make. We want to get more houses quickly. I do not believe that any building worker, human nature being what it is, will work himself out of a job. If there are a lot of houses going up on a big site and a very small supply of materials on the site, a man will naturally say to himself, "I am not going to work myself out of a job." The same attitude is met in other directions. If we want to get houses erected quickly, either through the local authorities or a private builder, it is essential to ensure that at all times there are adequate supplies of materials so that a man can see that there is work for some considerable time ahead. We should not fall into the great mistake of trying to cram too many houses on to the acre, and we should have an adequate supply of materials on the job.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Tomney: My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) is motivated by a very urgent desire to see as many houses built as quickly as possible. I agree with some of the points he has made, but we can see that, generally speaking, the rate of building progress is a most important factor in the reduction of costs. The cost factor enters into a contract and usually arises in connection with wages. Wages and cost contracts are causing the greatest concern.
We have to face the fact that, according to the Girdwood Report, productivity in the building industry is not as high as we should like nor as it should be. This is due in part to the past. The men employed in a trade have experienced conditions under which they were in and out of work, and it is natural for them to view


the matter with a little apprehension despite the difficulties of the housing problem. Those local authorities which endeavoured to build houses by direct labour have experienced considerable success where a direct labour department was in being before 1939, but the picture since then is perhaps not so good. I am quite aware that Edmonton, for instance, has done a wonderful job, but I want to refer in a moment to what has been achieved by the Hammersmith Borough Council.
I know that hon. Members have this problem very much in their minds. In the big cities it is more acute than anywhere else, because there we have the added disadvantage of having very little land available. It is perfectly obvious that, in London, despite the advent of new towns, which are developing all too slowly, the position will have to be met by the erection of more and more flats. Industry is concentrated in London, and people will not willingly travel out of London away from their work. Therefore, it may be that direct labour, bulk buying and securing valuable discounts will achieve the greatest possible progress.
I should like to refer to a scheme which has been completed by my own borough, and which I think is a marvellous achievement by direct labour. The tender submitted by the Building and Maintenance Committee of the Borough Council for 32 flats was £62,228, and the next lowest tender by private enterprise was £65,312. The quantity surveyor's final cost was £57,705 12s. 4d., but the actual cost of the contract—and this is where the real improvement has been made—was only £56,377.
How has that been achieved. It has been achieved by two things. One is guaranteeing the workmen continuity of employment, and anybody in the building trade, if he looks at the position as he should, will know that there is at least 99 years' work in front of any building operative in this country on slum clearance alone. That position must be faced, but the important thing is that, in the building industry, we have to get away from the basic rates, and that is what we have done at Hammersmith. We have disregarded the Joint Industrial Council rates of wages and allowed a bonus system which has been applicable, not only to the bricklayer, the carpenter

and the plumber, but to all the servicing men and the labourers who bring the materials. The bonus system was available on the same percentage basis to the men who did the carrying and fetching as to those men who completed the skilled operations.
In these circumstances, the men are quite willing to work and to get the work done, because the general bonus level is uplifted. The average wage of the bricklayer on the contract has been about £9 per week, which, in these days, is a living wage for that type of labour, but the actual base rate is £5 12s. 0d., which is much lower. It is by such methods of raising the incentives in industry, together with the certainty of continued work, that further workers will always be forthcoming.
In regard to slum clearance, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), stated that people do not set out willingly to build slums. We quite agree up to a certain point, but part of this country's industrial development came with an industrial revolution. There was a great need for houses for a certain income level, and certain building techniques and standards which applied at that time have now, I am glad to say, been left behind.
Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale regarding the urge to get on with house building, I can say as the proud possessor of a garden back and front that that is a privilege which should not lightly be surrendered. It is a heritage to which everybody should be entitled, but which only a few have been privileged to enjoy in the past. As I say, while agreeing with my hon. Friend on some of the points he raised, I do not think we should surrender the valuable intimate garden space which makes for a good and happy family life.

8.40 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) for raising this question of the cost of building and also for our having had the good fortune of this Adjournment debate coming on at an early hour, thus enabling many of us to contribute to it. I put down a Question to the Minister of Health which, had it been answered


satisfactorily, would have had quite a considerable effect on the cost of building houses or, more accurately, on providing accommodation units. But it was not answered satisfactorily; it was, indeed, the first of the Questions not reached on Thursday, and when the answer came on a piece of paper it did not seem to me to be a very sound one. Therefore, I gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I would raise this question again if I was fortunate enough to catch his eye, and I gave my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary notice that I should do so in the hope that he would elucidate the answer a little and perhaps be able, after considering it, to give a different answer from that given by his right hon. Friend.
I asked whether the Minister would consider altering the present system by which housing allocations are made to local authorities, by giving proportionately larger numerical allocations to those local authorities who wish to build a higher proportion of one- and two-bed roomed houses. That seems to me to be quite a sensible suggestion. The Minister replied that the existing system of allocations was sufficiently flexible to allow account to be taken of considerations such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend when the detailed building programme of an authority was known. Unless I am quite wrongly informed by officers of local authorities in my constituency, that answer really does not correspond with the present facts at all.
At intervals every local authority is told the number of accommodation units they may provide in the following 12 months. Let us take the case of where that figure is 80. That happens to be the number which applies to one of the local authorities in my constituency. The local council then has to decide what the size of the houses should be and whether they shall build 80 average size council houses or some smaller houses.
There are three main alternatives. They can build the two-bed roomed house, which in all other respects is similar to the full-sized council house. It has a front room, kitchen, two lavatories, a bathroom, and so on. There is no great advantage in that because 11 of the two-bed roomed houses are roughly

equivalent to 10 full-sized council houses. That being so, there is not a great deal to be gained there, although I should have thought that if any council had decided to build 11 of those smaller houses, they could have had them in place of 10 of their allocation; that is to say, if their allocation were 80, they could have gone up to 81 by including 11 of the slightly smaller houses.
There is another proposition, which is to build old people's bungalows. That, again, is not very sensational in its effects numerically because, roughly speaking, as I understand it, five old people's bungalows are the equivalent of four full-sized council houses when it comes to labour, material, costs and time in erection and so on. So, again, I should have thought that if a local authority were allocated 80 houses for their next year's programme they could decide to knock off eight of those and build just 72 full-sized council houses, and then, instead of building the other eight, they should be allowed to build 10 old people's bungalows. One would have thought that the total amount of money, man-hours and building materials would be equivalent, and that it would be for the local authority to decide in what way their own local conditions would make it wisest to use this total of materials, money and man-power.
But, of course, the really important numerical effects begin to arise when we consider the Duplex house, a house which, at a casual glance from the outside, looks a good deal like an ordinary full-sized council house. In fact, it contains two accommodation units. One unit is of two rooms and the other unit of three rooms so designed that, if necessary, in five or 10 years it could be made into one house of three bedrooms.
Numerically, this Duplex house is a much more attractive proposition, because roughly speaking, seven Duplex houses give 14 accommodation units, is the equivalent of eight full-sized council houses. I would have thought, therefore, that, in an extreme case, any local authority allocated 80 houses for their 1951 building programme would have been entitled to choose to build, instead, 70 Duplex houses, which would mean 140 smaller accommodation units instead of the 80 larger houses. If they did not choose to go to the extreme limit they could have gone to a halfway position,


putting up, instead of 80 full-sized council houses, 40 full-sized council houses and 35 Duplex houses, which would have resulted in 110 accommodation units of different size.
That is how I should have thought the situation ought to be, and my Question, which was not reached on Thursday, asked the Minister if he would consider altering the present arrangement so as to turn it into the arrangement which I have now elaborated at greater length than one possibly could do in a Parliamentary Question. I will concede to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that he can shoot me down on the technical point that I did not elaborate my Question so as to include the Duplex house in so many words, because that would have made it as complicated as some of the Regulations which he and some of his colleagues have to defend from that Box. But I do not think he is going to take such a small point from me.
I think the general purpose of my Question is quite clear and the answer given is that the existing system is sufficiently flexible. That is news to me. It will be news to the chairmen of the housing committees and their officials, at any rate to those with whom I have talked. I have talked to only three or four but they have told me that if they are given 80 houses in their housing allocation for next year and if they decide that one shall be a Duplex house, that knocks down the total number of houses they can build to 78 because, in that Duplex house, they have two accommodation units. In other words, they are allotted not houses but accommodation units. If I am wrong, and if those who have been informing me on the subject are also wrong, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain the position quite quickly and we shall know, in future, how we stand. If they are wrong, they will understand that, in future, if they are given an allocation of 80 houses, they can choose, if they wish, to build 70 Duplex houses and thereby get 140 units of accommodation.
I believe this is important because I think the House and the country ought to take note of the fact that, since the sharp worsening of the international situation in Korea is imposing quite new strains upon our economy, we are in a wholly different position as regards our housing

prospects from anything which confronted us up to last May. Hon. Members opposite may perhaps be inclined to mock when I say this, but up till last May it was not unreasonable to assert that, contrary to all forecasts which the Opposition were making in another place 12 months ago, and contrary to all forecasts which they made at the General Election, the economic recovery of this country was absolutely astounding.
The increase in productivity, the improvement in our balance of trade, were amazing. Therefore, up to last May it was not unreasonable for anybody to suppose that a rate of building of 200,000 in 1950 could be increased to 400,000 in 1951 and could go higher than that in 1952; and that, therefore, within a measurable number of years—say four—we should be able to solve the housing problem by a process of building full-sized council houses.
I do not want to renew the prolonged debate which we had only a few weeks, ago. I thought the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) pretty well demolished all the claims made by hon. Members opposite that they could, build up to 300,000 houses a year. I think we all have to face the fact that at any rate of building which is reasonably likely under any Government in the next two, three or four years we shall not shorten the housing queues very much simply by building houses. In the present international situation we are not likely to, shorten the housing queues very much in that way.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro (Kidderminster) rose—

Sir R. Acland: Let me finish. This situation is in very large part due to the fact that in some houses deaths and other incidents are giving large numbers of families more and more elbow room, while in other houses marriages and births are continually adding to the ranks of the grossly overcrowded.

Brigadier Clarke: There are some babies being born, too.

Sir R. Acland: That is the very point I was making. It appears to me, therefore—[interruption]—I am trying to make a completely non-party point which I feel hon. Members on all sides should note it appears to me that we shall not break


the back of the waiting list in any measurable time unless we make better use of the housing accommodation which already exists but which is not fully used. Starting with the biggest houses in the land and working down to many which are not so large, we shall find house after house, in street after street, where the number of rooms is entirely disproportionate to the number of people.

Mr. Keenan: On a point of order. I raised on the Adjournment the subject of housing costs. We are now talking about something different—houses already in existence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I fully agree, and I hope hon. Members will confine themselves to that subject, but I am afraid I cannot compel them to do so.

Sir R. Acland: This is very relevant to the cost of providing the houses, the accommodation units, which we need to break the back of the housing waiting lists within a measurable time.

Mr. Nabarro: Hon. Members opposite have had five years.

Sir R. Acland: I will not pursue this point further except to say, if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will allow me, that the first step in getting a better distribution of housing accommodation than that which we have at the moment is to build large numbers, the largest possible number—

Brigadier Clarke: Three hundred thousand.

Sir R. Acland: —of houses or accommodation units suitable for elderly couples or even for single people. As soon as we can provide the largest possible number of acceptable accommodation units for the families of one or two elderly people, so that we can offer them attractive dwellings, we can liberate for the use of the larger families existing houses of four or five or six rooms.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale for having strayed from the strict path of his argument, but I am coming right back to the very point, for by this means I have described we can lower the cost of making dwellings

available to the people—on the one proviso, that local authorities, when they are offered an allocation of 80 houses, for instance, understand they are to be 80 full-sized council houses, and that they are entitled, if they choose, instead to put up 70 of the Duplex houses and thereby gain control not of 80 accommodation units but of 140. I hope that on that point the Minister will be able to say something more satisfactory than I heard in answer to the Question.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Remnant: Had the subject of the Debate been other than it is, I should have been only too pleased to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). As the subject under discussion is how to reduce housing costs, I intend to confine myself to that point, because it is an important subject—quite important enough for us to discuss.
I feel that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) was speaking words of wisdom when he talked about increasing the efficiency of the labour by bonus schemes or some system by which they would be paid by results. I do hope that all hon. Members opposite who have influence either with the unions or with the employers will endeavour to persuade both sides that that is one of the major means of reducing housing costs. The hon. Member also rightly said—and I should like to stress that and I am sure all hon. Members will agree—that we must sympathise with the man in wishing not to work himself out of a job. The basis on which production schemes or bonus schemes must depend for success is a full supply of materials sufficient for the job, and not coming in by dribs and drabs.
As I go about my country district I see one or two small ways in which costs have been raised unnecessarily. There are very nice housing estates with looproads with one entrance from the main road. There is a large patch of grass in the middle. When I inquire what is going to be done with that patch of grass nobody can tell me—except that it is thought that the Ministry of Health have insisted on there being a patch of grass. I have gone into this, and have asked the occupants of the houses whether they would be willing to have a row of houses on that little


piece with a garden at the back and front, if it saved them a bob or two rent. The answer in all cases was, "Yes, certainly," partly because they want a reduction in rent and partly because they sympathise with those on the long waiting lists for homes.
They also wonder whether it is really necessary to have the roads made up to highway standards so that the county council can take them over, when all that goes round them are delivery vans of grocer, the baker or the milkman. A little extra expense is involved there. I understand that the Minister of Health is now giving sanction in some cases for buildings to be put on the grass, but it means ploughing up the roads for the sewers and the electric light mains.
There is one question I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. It follows on that small part of the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend which did refer to housing costs. It is about the tendency of the present system of allocating accommodation units to tempt local authorities to build larger or three-bedroomed houses. The Parliamentary Secretary ought not to shake his head. I am going to tell him of a particular instance. If he will give consent to this I shall willingly withdraw the remarks I am going to make. The three-bedroomed house can be made into two flats, one up and one down, both of which can accord with the Ministry's specifications, at the same cost, except a very little extra cost for additional plumbing. By turning a three-bedroomed house into two flats it becomes two accommodation units. I think the same amount of material only is used.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: This is a very interesting point which the hon. Member is making, but has he not had experience of this experiment? Unless there is some insulation against noise, where families are very much together in one building there is trouble and there are complaints. Certainly that is my experience.

Mr. Remnant: That may be so. I am not an expert in building houses; I am the first to admit it. Therefore, I go to the experts, and the architect and surveyor of the district council concerned are the persons who have given me the advice for the suggestion which I am putting forward. I may be wrong: the hon. Member may

be right; but that is the suggestion which has been put to me.
As a layman, I do not know the technicalities; but is there any real reason why the allocation should not be made on a super-footage basis? Can we not by that means, while maintaining ministerial control, which hon. Members opposite seem to desire, and which I accept for the moment as correct, give the local authorities elasticity to vary the size of the houses to suit their particular requirements. There may be a very good reason why this cannot be done, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to give me an answer.
It was suggested the other day in a supplementary question that the allocation should be by cost. The Minister turned that down rather flatly. I can see the reason for it. The basis of cost will vary between different parts of the country, and that might not be quite fair, but I cannot see what is against the super-footage basis. As a layman, I am very willing to be shot down, in flames if need be, if it is a wrong suggestion, but I put it forward as a possible means of adding to the number of accommodation units, without increasing the consumption of material. I believe that what we are all after, although we may approach it by different means, is the housing in their own homes of as many of our people who are on the waiting lists as we possibly can, with the materials and labour available at the moment.

9.7 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: In taking part in a debate of this sort, one's comments are bound to be coloured by the type of constituency which one represents. I represent a constituency which has in it perhaps some of the worst slums in the country and which were left to us many years ago long before a Labour Government was able to take control. No attempt was made to solve the housing problem during those years, when unemployment pay was paid to building trade labourers and building workers to keep them unemployed rather than that they should be used to deal with the materials which were then readily available.
When we are dealing with the question of cutting costs or cheapening costs, our remarks, as I say, are bound to be coloured by the type of constituency in


which we live. I took the trouble over the week-end to talk to one or two people about this matter. I am very conscious of the fact that we must be particularly careful not to build houses of the type which were built many years ago and which quickly became slums, but the suggestions have been made by various societies and technical people that some of the things now put into houses should be temporarily dispensed with until more materials are easily available. It is suggested that the necessary fittings should be put in, so that at a time when these things are more easily available they can be added to the houses. I am informed that in that way costs could be very considerably reduced, and I want to put forward one or two details which have been suggested to me.
It is not an easy problem at the moment to deal with the question of reducing housing costs, because it is partly outside the control of the Government. Building materials are in the hands of private enterprise; bricks, cement and practically everything necessary for building houses are in the hands of private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] It is all right for hon. Members to talk like that, but I was dealing with housing when some of them were being pushed around in their carriages. I was agitating against the Government which they represent to get something done about housing while their mothers were pushing them round in pushchairs.
Early in 1945, after this Government took control, it was necessary to threaten the brick industry when it refused to open brickfields to supply the bricks which were required for building. It was necessary for the Minister of Works to threaten the industry that he would take over the brickyards in order to make the bricks which the industry did not seem prepared to do. It was only after that threat was made that we began to get the necessary bricks. The brick makers would not pay the brick workers the rates which they wanted.
It is not very easy to reduce costs at present because of the factors I have mentioned, but suggestions have been made by the building trade organisations. The Opposition will not agree with me, but I believe that the building industry and all materials connected with it should come

under State control immediately in order to prevent the profiteering and the switching of labour into private industry and private building which is happening at present.
The debate on housing convinced me that if I had any responsibility in the Government I would take up the Opposition's challenge to build 300,000 houses, because everything which would be necessary to build the extra 100,000 houses would be against the policy of the Opposition. There would be more bulk buying than there is at present. But we are getting away from the question of reducing costs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am prepared to take on any hon. Member opposite on the subject of house building and private industry in relation to it, but this is not the moment for it. I shall have the opportunity some other time, and I shall be quite prepared to take them on individually or collectively.
The suggestions made by those who are mainly responsible for building corporation houses—

Brigadier Clarke: Will the hon. Lady tell us about her own army?

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows more about armies than I do, although I know something about the unemployed armies during the years between the wars. These suggestions are made by directors of housing and others who are responsible for housing, and they are made purely to meet the emergency and are not proposed as permanent features. I understand that some of the suggestions have the full support of the technical colleges and those who are responsible for preparing reports about house building. The first suggestion is that the maximum use should be made of all available building land commensurate with good planning, good roads and good approaches. Many say that that is not being done, and that the best use is not being made of the available manpower.
There is also the question of making economies in road widths, and for the moment leaving out fitted wardrobes, which require timber, and one or two other amenities which are both necessary and useful. These things could be left over for a short time, and I am sure people would not mind if they were not put in. The next matter is the question


of the outside lavatory. That strikes me as being a very peculiar position. Very many people in industrial areas have not known what it is to have a water closet. In the constituency I represent, people are living in houses built by those supported by Members opposite, with earth closets that have to be emptied every morning by the sanitary departments of the local authorities. The outside lavatory could be left out until we are in a better position to provide it for the houses. Space could be left for all these things until such time as they can be provided.
I understand that under a Ministry of Health regulation an outside shed, 7 ft. by 5 ft., must be added to every house. I am told that in the majority of cases these sheds are little used, except for gardening tools. [HON. MEMBERS: "And prams."] Prams are not usually put outside, but are left standing in the hall. [Interruption.] One thing I can teach Members opposite is a little bit of manners and decency. I think they were taught that it was very rude to mutter while others were speaking. These outside sheds could be left out unless a special request was made for one. This could be done quite easily, because it is known who is to occupy a house when the foundations are first put in, so bad are the cases.
Lastly, I understand that the Ministry have been advised by the institute responsible for advising them that ceiling heights could be quite easily reduced to 7 ft. 6 in. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us; I understand the Ministry have been advised by technicians and those responsible for advising that that can be done quite comfortably. That is the height in the prefabricated house, and no one in a prefabricated house has ever yet complained about the height of the ceiling. Slightly to reduce the height would save two or three layers of bricks and would save stairs and electrical equipment. That may not be right, but when we are in an emergency we ought to look at every aspect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Coming to the question of labour and materials, perhaps I shall not get so many "Hear, hears" from hon. Members opposite.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not the hon. Lady like it?

Mrs. Braddock: Not from the hon. and gallant Member. I believe far too much

building other than housing is going on, and there are too many additions that are not housing additions going through councils, involving the use of bricks, mortar and cement. It ought to be possible for the Ministry to say that the very minimum of other work is to be done while we need to supply so many additional houses. Picturedromes—in fact, I would say every type of building—should stop completely for a period of two or three years, with the exception of factories for the purpose of getting full employment and houses for the housing of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hospitals and schools?"]
I would include everything. Do not ask me questions. We should have accepted the challenge of the Opposition, because the things we would accept would not be agreed to by them. Many hospitals are being used for people who would not have to go into them if they had decent houses. Extensions to mental hospitals would not be so necessary if people had decent houses. Of course, I am criticising the conditions because I am a realist and I have to live amongst them. Every week of my life I have to see people who have lived under bad conditions. If I talked of how people have lived under Tory control in Liverpool for the last 20 or 30 years I would make hon. Members' hair stand on end.
I quite agree that the question of the continued and guaranteed supply of building material on the site is of fundamental importance and that local authorities should be given good notice far in advance of what they are able to build. They ought to know over a period of two or three years what houses to rent they are to be allowed to build. If a building trade worker knows there is continuity of employment he will remain on the job, but if he feels that it might stop when the particular contract is finished and that there is nothing else to go to in the line of housing, he will look for a job in some other form of building.
Perhaps I have dealt with this matter rather longer and in more detail than was necessary, but these points are of desperate interest. I think that from whatever side of the House a suggestion comes, nothing should be left undone to help us to meet in the cheapest possible way, in the shortest possible time and without lowering our standard, what I consider to


be the number one priority problem of this country.
The building trade worker has no security of tenure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members on the benches opposite get in, they will have no continuity at all. The difficulty is that while hon. Members opposite say they will build an extra 1,000 houses, they do not say who they will build them for, and they do not say if the houses will be cheaper than the ones we have at the present moment. They will not be. They will be dearer because, in the main, they will be for sale.

Mr. Nabarro: How does the hon. Member know?

Mrs. Braddock: I do know. I have had experience of hon. Members opposite. I believe that the tears of hon. Members opposite are crocodile tears. At the moment, when there is a corporation house-building job going on alongside a job of building private houses, it is always the corporation house which is short of material—

Brigadier Clarke: Ten of yours to one of the others.

Mrs. Braddock: It is not the privately built house which is short of material. There are other places in this building where the hon. and gallant Member who has just interrupted would be better employed than in making the comments he is making at the moment. However many suggestions and however much advice is given to the Minister, he ought to look at it carefully. If it is a question of additional money from the Treasury to get extra timber, the Treasury ought to know that if we want people to increase their productive capacity, the necessary finance for houses must be available. Let it be remembered that many of the building trade workers are waiting for houses themselves, and if we want them to work as hard as they can, we must give them a guarantee that nothing will be left undone.
Finally, I believe this is the only party which can find the solution to the housing problem, but if we continue building at the present rate per acre, it will be impossible to solve it. This is an island, not a continent, and we need land for many other things. So that, in addition to reducing the price of house building,

there must be a complete review of the programme, and everything possible must be done, even if it means re-imposing many of the controls which I believe were taken off far too soon. We must be certain that labour and materials are in the main directed into house building, even if it means leaving some other things undone until we are assured that people have decent conditions in which to live.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Redmayne: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), for putting so clearly so many of the arguments previously put by my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House. She must of course have her political blows, that is well understood but I am certain that she has put the thing in a nutshell and I hope the points she has made will at least be given attention by the Minister of Health—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Where indeed? It is said that truth will out and I could wish that this small debate might run to its fullest limit and that we shall have put forward in the sober light of this minor occasion all the points which we on this side of the House have made previously. We have had reference to the lowering of standards, density, terraced houses, and lower ceilings. All these points have been put seriously and are points which were turned down the other day with such venom and scorn.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange, made one rather ingenuous suggestion. She proposed to reduce the cost of building by nationalising the building industry. I would merely say that that optimistic hope is perhaps not borne out by the present examples of nationalisation. She wished to confine building to houses and factories and she would cut out schools and technical colleges. I have a vivid recollection of sitting in this House a short time ago and hearing with what scorn that suggestion was received.
I turn to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) in regard to density. He made some sound and sensible suggestions. In the matter of density we should keep our sense of proportion. It is no use sticking to one figure through thick and thin and saying it is the only figure which will ever do. I think the hon. Member had that in mind. Quite clearly and very often the


effect of a higher density would be more valuable from a housing point of view.
In speaking of terraced buildings, many of us think of mining terraces and we think with nothing but disgust of that type of building. But if we regard some of the finest types of terraced architecture we see what can be done in that direction. One of the biggest faults, and one I think which is encouraged by the Ministry today, is that we have gone the wrong way about things with regard to symmetry. We have cast aside any sort of symmetry and planned our housing land so that houses face in every possible direction. I believe in another 50 years when our sons look back on what we have done they may well think that we are daft in our planning.
We have no idea of the proper artistic and economic use of land. I support what the hon. Member said about the saving in cost by using more sense in the planning and lay-out of land. It is a strong point that if we plan the land a bit more in straight lines and put the terraces together, we save the road costs and so on. I suggest also that we save such expensive things as shopping centres and the cost of housewives' shoe leather, as well as such things as milk-rounds and other overhead costs, which do not affect the Ministry of Health, but do affect the trade and industry of this country. I ask therefore that the Ministry should drop some of its more high-falutin' ideas about housing, adopt some of those sensible ideas expressed by the hon. Member for Kirkdale, and try to get away from a paradise of Socialism into planning common sense.

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We have had a useful and not too lengthy discussion upon the question of housing. It has ranged over a pretty wide field but I do not complain of that because the contributions made this evening have been sober and useful; though some of the interruptions have, I think, been a little less useful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Keenan) was anxious to raise a point about the density of housing in relation to housing costs. He, like other hon. Members, seems to have got it into his head that there is one overall density figure which is imposed centrally upon all

authorities. Of course, that is just simply not true. The density rates vary from one part of the country to another in relation to the type of area which is being considered.
For example, there is a very wide difference indeed between the densities approved in our redevelopment areas and main industrial areas and those approved on the outskirts of our cities and in rural areas. Even within those particular groups there is a wide variety of figures approved for densities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale, has referred to various figures for density as if they were figures imposed by the Ministry of Health. In fact, of course, the density is largely decided by the planning authorities. In deciding what should be the proper density for the development of a particular area, account is taken of the type of area and of its needs. We deal rather with habitable rooms to the acre than with houses or accommodation units. We work upon a reasonable average, and we give to some parts of London a very much greater density than any of the figures that have been mentioned.

Mr. Keenan: The figure that I gave from the provinces is a maximum of 14 houses to the acre. I can appreciate the fact that in areas in London the figure will be even greater.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am talking not only about London but development throughout the country as a whole, and, in fact, there is no density figure for houses to the acre at all. We work upon the basis of habitable rooms to the acre, and figures by the planning authorities up and down the country vary enormously from one part to another. It is very desirable that they should.
May I say a word about the general problem of standards? It has been stated by my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side of the House that the minimum standards laid down by the Ministry in the Housing Manual are in some way extravagant. There are in fact housing authorities up and down the country who build at considerably higher standards than those we laid down as a minimum, and in the last year we have drawn the attention of local authorities to the desirability of getting their plans nearer to the minimum we have laid down in the Housing Manual itself. That does


not mean. as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) suggested in the earlier debate on housing, that we propose to reduce the standards below the Manual standards, but we are encouraging places like Luton and elsewhere to consider bringing their proposals more into line with those laid down in the Manual itself.
I warn hon. Members on both sides of the House—I do not think it is in any sense a party issue; there are divisions of view about it—that there is a very great danger indeed in attempting as it were to sell the future for the apparent benefit of the present. I realise the pressure that there is from people who are wanting houses, but in trying to meet their need as rapidly as we can we must be very careful not to fall into the mistakes of the past. Up and down the country one of the greatest worries that most local authorities have to face is that the vast proportion of houses built about the turn of the century are now rapidly becoming uninhabitable, and we must be very careful to make sure that we do not lay on the backs of future generations another heritage of that kind.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale was anxious to insist not on a return to bad standards, but on examining carefully the standards of today to make sure that they are reasonable and not the somewhat idealistic standards that some hon. Members think they are. The minimum standards which we have laid down have not suddenly been created out of our imagination. They are arrived at only after very careful examination and discussion. First came the report of the Dudley Committee during the war, and then later the report of the sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under whose authority the new Housing Manual of 1949 was produced. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House seem, indeed, to be putting forward suggestions which have been recommended by the Ministry to local authorities over a considerable period of time.
Let me take, for example, the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale raised about the building of terraced houses. As I mentioned in an interruption while he was speaking, we have been pressing upon local authorities

for some considerable time the urgent desirability of including many more groups of houses in the development of estates, both because of their value from an economic point of view, and also because of amenity considerations as well. We believe that we shall not get a well planned estate if we are going to pepper-pot the whole place with a mass of semidetached houses. Apart from the waste of land and frontage and the cost involved, there is the fact that, unless a reasonable proportion of varied types of house are included within the estate, there is not going to be either that community feeling in the development of the whole nor the most effective planning.
We are therefore urging that every local authority throughout the country, where practicable, should take into account, both on the grounds of economy and amenity, the need to build not only terraced houses but also blocks of flats, especially in those areas where in the past they have not been considered at all. We want to see a balanced development in the estates going up. It does not please myself nor my right hon. Friend to see development of continuous semi-detached buildings, as has been found in many local authority estates. My right hon. Friend and I have mentioned this at countless meetings, and it has been a regular subject of discussion with local authorities. We have done our best to bring it to the attention of local authorities time out of number.
I would go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale and say not only do we want the development of properly planned terraced building, but we should also like to see blocks of flats as a natural part of estate development, always keeping in mind the peculiar needs of an area. We are also anxious that local authorities should bear in mind the need for hostels for old people within the confines of an estate—if possible, providing accommodation for a number of old people—as well as the need for old people's bungalows.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, could he give us any information on the question of sound-proofing of flats, and particularly of Duplex houses? I ask him on that point because we are receiving complaints of inadequacy in the city in which I live.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is a point to be dealt with, and there are other special measures to be considered when dealing with flats. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) raised the matter of the building of flats, but it just is not true, of course, that we can get two flats at the same cost as one single house

Mr. Remnant: I did not say the same cost, but very nearly the same cost, with merely an addition for plumbing.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Sometimes experiments in using non-traditional types of building seem to meet with great success, but there is always this very real problem of securing noise insulation in blocks of flats.
Many hon. Members have raised detailed points about ways in which economies could be obtained. I think I have dealt with terraces and our desire to see terraces developed, but we have also had comments about various alterations and fittings of one kind and another. I would remind hon. Members that Appendix iv of the Girdwood Committee's Report listed some 65 suggestions for economies in respect of houses, which are being operated by our own regional officers. In a circular issued when we were sending out the copies of the Gird-wood Report, we drew the attention of local authorities to the value of considering some of the 65 suggestions, which included many of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), raised.
I do assure hon. Members that many, if not all, of the points they have raised have been very much under our consideration, and that very many of them have been put into operation some considerable time ago. For example, there was the point raised by one hon. Member concerning the height of rooms, which is a very arguable point. Very many authorities and very many architects—I think the majority of architects—would insist today that a 7 ft. 6 in. ceiling would not reduce the amenities of the house, but this is not a matter in which we impose a view on the local authorities. In fact, we have to examine this possibility and experiment, which is what many local authorities are in fact doing today. That is what we would wish; we do not wish to impose this point of view upon them.

Mr. Marples: Does the method of making an allocation of houses to the local authority encourage them to build more small houses? In other words, is the method of allocation such that it does not encourage local authorities to carry out these recommendations?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all. Hon. members must realise that one of the most potent forces that affects the decision of the local authority is bound to be its ability to erect houses at a reasonable rental. We all know that. What is more, of course, local authorities are attracted to building smaller houses in the normal circumstances because of the extra value of the subsidies they receive. There is no doubt about that either.
But it would be most unfair to insist that every local authority, irrespective of its needs, should concentrate its attention upon building one- or two-bedroomed houses. No one, in point of fact, has done more recently than those at the Ministry of Health in trying to encourage local authorities, where desirable, to build more one- and two-bedroomed houses. Circulars were sent out over a year ago drawing the attention of local authorities to this need, and, what is more important, as hon. Members know, they have produced the desired result.
When examining either tenders approved or completion figures we notice a steady growth in the proportion of small houses being built by local authorities. Naturally, local authorities started off by concentrating upon the three-bedroomed house, which most of them thought was then the-most urgent need. At the same time, they were providing smaller houses in the form of temporary prefabricated houses. But as the housing campaign has gone forward, most local authorities have turned over a good deal to the building of smaller houses, with the result that today there is a very large proportion of such houses being built.
We do not want to press local authorities into going too far because one pertinent remark of the Royal Commission on Population some months ago was that we not only needed smaller houses, but that, in some cases, more of the larger houses, larger even than the three-bedroomed type. Therefore it is vital that


we should not press the authorities too hard to provide too big a proportion of smaller houses, if, indeed, their own need is more for the larger house. I assure hon. Members that the position varies very much from one part of the country to another.

Mrs. Braddock: Am I to understand that if a local authority prepared plans leaving out some of the things suggested this evening and submitted them to one of the regions, the region would return those plans and insist upon the things left out being included in them?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not propose to go through the whole list of the 65 proposals made by us. I can only say that they cover most of the proposals made tonight by hon. Members on both sides. None of these proposals, however, impairs the proper standard of the house which we still insist should be maintained at the levels mentioned in the Housing Manual.
One hon. Member raised quite properly the question of the size and width of roads in developing estates. That, again, is a point which we have raised with local authorities, and which we are very anxious to discuss with them. We sometimes find that we have to impose a cutting down of the size and width of roads against the wishes of local authorities and after a certain amount of discussion with the planning authorities concerned. Our aim has all along been to try to ensure a reasonable width of road. In fact, the Housing Manual says:
Housing authorities should aim at securing the most economical design and lay-out of roads consistent with amenities and the demands of normal estate traffic only,
which is the vital point.
I think I have said enough to show that we are by no means adopting some sort of fantastic idealistic standard and imposing it throughout the country. Indeed, there is a very great variety of work being done in different parts of the country. We do insist upon certain minimum standards that we believe to be right, but, within those standards, we wish to encourage the greatest possible flexibility in meeting what are obviously our most urgent needs. I assure hon. Members that we are very willing to consider any practical proposals, but at the same time, I

assure them that nearly all the points raised in this House tonight are suggestions which are in operation in one part of the country or another, and which we have brought to the attention of the local authorities on numerous occasions and are perfectly willing to discuss with them.
Finally, let me repeat this warning: we quite appreciate the ease with which pressure can be developed for a reduction of standards that would merely be a steady slipping down the greasy slope into the conditions of the past. I hope we all want to make a stand against that. Subject to making that stand, upon what I believe to be the reasonable, practicable minimum standards laid down in the Housing Manual, I believe that, in cooperation with local authorities, we can do much to tackle the cost of housing at a time which is perhaps the most difficult of all. We all know that the pressure of defence and of every other kind of demand—whatever we can do about it—is tending to force up the cost of the very materials we must have for re-housing.
I urge hon. Members, on both sides of the House, to co-operate in insisting that whatever we can do to increase our struggle for better housing in this country we should not do anything that will leave us open to bitter attack by our successors. Let us not repeat the tragic record of the past and leave to future generations such tragedies as we have inherited.

Sir R. Acland: Would the hon. Gentleman say a word on the question of whether, if local authorities chose to build smaller accommodation, they can—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet has already addressed the House. He cannot address it twice.

TIBET

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to raise the subject of the Chinese Communist Government's present aggression in Tibet. At the moment, there is a Chinese delegation on its way to Lake Success to discuss before the United Nations the subject "American aggression on Formosa." The subject which, really, the United Nations has to discuss is not American aggression on Formosa but


Chinese Communist aggression on Tibet. In my submission, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to do all in their power to prevent the Chinese Government from being able to attend the Security Council until this present aggression against Tibet has come to an end.
After all, of all the harmless countries in the world, surely Tibet is the most harmless. It is a country the population of which is mainly composed of Buddhists and, for the most part, of Buddhists who accept the original doctrine of Gautama and who are pacifists. [Interruption.] They are even more pacific in their behaviour towards others, than the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as a pacifist, is with some of us in this House. It is often said in this House that it is remarkable that one can come across experts on any subject. I have always understood that no Englishman had ever lived in Tibet. I was astounded to discover that there is a Member of this House who has lived for many months in Tibet. It is an astonishing fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield), who is kind enough for the moment to sit next to me, has lived there for many months, and I am sure he will correct me if I make any misstatement on a subject of which, after all, I am necessarily somewhat ignorant.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. Blackburn: Even the "Daily Worker," even the Communists themselves, have for once not dared to proclaim that the country the Communists are attacking is really the aggressor. We have been told that the South Koreans marched against the North Koreans. We have been told of the terribly aggressive designs of Tito, in Yugoslavia, against the Soviet Union. But this lie was too great even for Stalin; even Stalin could not say that Tibet had attacked China and the Soviet Union. For once, if I may say so, we can congratulate Stalin and his friends upon their wisdom.
Nor, indeed, can it be suggested—although it would be an irrelevant suggestion if it were made—that Tibet is a country which is living in abject poverty.

Let me quote from an excellent report in "The Times" of today. It admits, of course quite correctly, that Tibet is run under a feudal system, but it says:
Yet the peasantry is by and large well off and there is no grinding poverty such as exists in China and India.
There are some hon. Members—I am never quite sure about the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—who suggest that in the cause of efficiency totalitarianism may sometimes be justified. I have heard that argument adduced many times. It is a most horrible, repulsive and loathsome argument. Even that argument cannot be adduced in the case of Tibet, however, because the people there are far better off than the Chinese and far better off than most of those who live in India.

Mr. Harrison: Mr. Harrison (Nottingham, East) rose—

Mr. Blackburn: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but I cannot give way. I have only a short time in which to make my speech. I promise that I will give way to him the next time I speak, but I am afraid I cannot do so tonight.
I submit that we have to face the fact that if we parley with the aggressors while the aggression continues, we are responsible for a form of appeasement far worse than Munich. After all, at the time of Munich we were not arguing while Hitler's forces were invading Czechoslovakia. If His Majesty's Government now parley with the Chinese Communist Government they will be doing what Neville Chamberlain himself would never have done—parleying with the aggressors at the very moment that aggression is taking place. It is almost as if one were remonstrating with a man while he was raping one's sister. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for South Ayrshire laughs, for we have that peculiar mentality of our pacifist friends, that violence is almost approved so long as it enables them to show their pacifist views.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (Ayshire, South): I was laughing at the hon. Member's exaggeration.

Mr. Blackburn: Anyone who has the slightest experience of the Red Army's advance in Europe would know that the reference I made to rape is pretty accurate.
I wish to turn to the legal aspect of this matter as it may be advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. On 21st June, 1950, the Minister of State, quoting with approval the Foreign Secretary of 5th August, 1943, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said:
His Majesty's Government have always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1267.]
Surely it must be perfectly clear that that understanding has been broken by the Chinese Communist Government, who do not regard Tibet as autonomous but are treating Tibet as a satellite of the Chinese Government. It is perfectly plain, therefore, that our recognition of the suzerainty of China over Tibet falls to the ground.
In any event, I personally agree with the view put forward at that time by Lord Vansittart and by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) as to the recognition of the Communist Government of China. I am now convinced that it was a mistake, although I did not say so at the time. I kept silent at the time. I have no right whatever to say to His Majesty's Government, "I told you so." But that does not alter my opinion that we should now recognise the facts; and the fact which we ought to face is, as Lord Vansittart himself said at the time, that we were inviting some one to join a club when he had already notified us in advance that he did not intend to observe the rules of the club. In the Press and on the radio the Chinese Communist Government had announced their intention, in their own words, of liberating Tibet. At the very time that they were announcing their intention of taking over Tibet, we recognised the Chinese Government.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State, in no hostile spirit, and with very great admiration for the Foreign Secretary who, I believe, has represented this country in a very fine way over the last six years, how on earth he can defend the manner in which we recognised the Chinese Communist Government? Do I understand that, in recognising the Chinese Communist Government, we recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet? All I can say is, speaking as a lawyer, if I behaved

in that way for a client of mine I should expect him to sack me immediately. It is a most serious matter.
It is, of course, perfectly arguable that we should have recognised de facto that the Communists were in charge of China, but it would be most monstrous to state that, because they have succeeded by force of arms in conquering China, they have a legal right to take over Tibet. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to make it quite plain that, in recognising the Communist Government of China, His Majesty's Government specifically excluded any statement which might recognise suzerainty over Tibet. In any event, it is quite clear that the conditions to which I have referred have not been fulfilled and that any right of suzerainty has been forfeited.
In any event again, I would say that the United Nations should certainly examine the matter for the reason given in the "Economist" of 18th November. It stated:
If the United Nations follows the precedent of its action over Indonesia it will assert jurisdiction. The Security Council refused to accept the Dutch contention that their conflict with the Indonesian Republic was merely a domestic affair of the Netherlands.
I will not go on with the quotation, because that is enough to illustrate my argument.
Let us forget the legal argument for a moment. Let us come to the basic principles. The sure way of avoiding war, as we have now learned, is to resist aggression at the moment that it first occurs. The parallel of Manchukuo in 1931 has been repeated over and over again in this House in relation to Korea, but it must not be repeated only in relation to Korea: it must be repeated in relation to Tibet as well. Otherwise, principles are a farce. Otherwise, all our high sounding moral speeches from both Front Benches and from all parts of the House of Commons themselves become meaningless.
As a matter of fact, there is even greater moral justification for giving aid to Tibet than there was for giving aid to South Korea. Let the Communists take over Tibet, and they are on the borders of India. Tibet—and I am speaking subject to correction by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West—has in its centre a plateau between 12,000 and 15,000 ft. above sea level. It is an ideal


area for the establishment of air ports of all kinds. It is an ideal area from which to conduct a radio war to dominate India and Pakistan. On moral, strategic and political grounds, we cannot afford to let Tibet fall.
I further suggest that the Government should immediately get in touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan, although Pakistan does not adjoin Tibet, and ask the Governments of India and Pakistan, with support from us, to send a brigade by air to Tibet. There is not the slightest doubt, in my view, that one brigade—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of volunteers?

Mr. Blackburn: I should prefer volunteers. The hon. Member knows my position on that.

Mr. Hughes: Definitely.

Mr. Blackburn: If we had to rely on gentlemen as patriotic as the hon. Gentleman, we should not—

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Member join them?

Mr. Blackburn: I should be perfectly willing if I could afford it. I am perfectly willing to accept the challenge of the hon. Member if he will pay for my children at school and find and pay for decent houses for them and myself. However, I put this suggestion sincerely, that a brigade should be offered, and that one brigade alone would be enough—

Mr. Harrison: Rubbish.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member says it is rubbish. I am going to sit down in a moment in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, may have some words to say on whether this is rubbish or not. But I do suggest that the northern frontiers of Tibet, the most difficult terrain in the world, could be, efficiently protected today, and be defended against aggression from Communist China.
I end with this recollection. I remember well having said in 1947 in this House that if Nicolai Petkov fell, the whole of Eastern Europe would be bowed under the Communists. I say tonight what I said about Nicolai Petkov—and what I said about Nicolai Petkov has been proved true—that if we allow the

bell to toll for Tibet, as we allowed the bell to toll for Nicolai Petkov, then we shall see the whole of Asia in imminent danger of falling under the domination of the foulest totalitarian tyranny this world has ever known.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Wakefield: I think there may be a danger of confusing suzerainty with sovereignty. Suzerainty is a conception which is quite common in the East, where it is intended to signify a token prestige; but a suzerain has no right whatsoever to interfere with the autonomy of the vassal. I strongly support what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), has said about the pacific nature of the Tibetans. They really are the most peace-loving nation on earth, and are incapable of fighting. They have no wish to fight. They have no means wherewith to fight. I have attended a military display in Gartok, the capital of Western Tibet, and the arms used were bows and arrows!
I have at this moment, living in my home in Derbyshire, a family of Tibetans. They are actually Tibetan dogs, but they manifest all the characteristics of the Tibetan people. When a stranger appears, they will go and bark at him. If the intruder retreats, they will pursue him; but if he advances they themselves retreat to another point of vantage, and then go on barking. If in due course the intruder establishes himself, they accept the fact; but if at some subsequent period, in some unguarded moment, he appears to weaken they will renew their attacks. The Tibetan people will not fight and defend themselves in the way that we should, because their whole nature derives from their religion. It is for that reason that they are incapable of defending themselves.
Whether we British can help them I do not know, but I do know that many people in India and Pakistan would volunteer if called upon. I do suggest that if we could associate ourselves with India in any physical protest that we could make against this violation of Tibetan independence, then we should be very wise.

Mr. Harrison: Would the hon. Gentleman have a word to say about this idea of a brigade protecting the Western approaches to this vast country? He


knows something about it. We called it "rubbish." I should like to know his opinion.

Mr. Wakefield: I think that what the hon. Member for Northfield said about defence by air is possible. In 1904, we sent an expedition to Lhasa. It had a very laborious journey, but we did not then have the advantage of air transport. Of course, the physical difficulties in that part of the world are immense.
I must give the hon. Gentleman time to reply, but I should like to address myself for a moment to a point which has not yet been raised, and that is the attitude of the Chinese themselves. The Chinese did for a very long period prior to 1894 govern Tibet. From 1894 to 1910, Tibet was independent, but from 1910 to 1912 there were again Chinese governors of Tibet, and Chinese school children have been brought up to believe that Tibet is a province of China. This new Communist Government is anxious, as all newly established governments are, to make a display of its strength, its patriotism and its courage. It is prepared to be aggressive. I have no doubt myself that this Chinese aggression is a natural form of expressing a new-found authority, of which advantage has been taken for sinister reasons, by a greater power.

10.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I think that our position in regard to Tibet has been made quite clear in the replies which I have given to Parliamentary Questions which have been put to me in the last two or three weeks. As I stated this afternoon, this matter is now before the United Nations. Tibet has appealed to the United Nations, and the United Nations is considering whether it should put the matter on its agenda and take any action. I think that it would be very rash of us tonight to discuss the military possibility of going to the aid of Tibet, of whether that would be advisable and whether that would be successful. It is entirely a matter now before the United Nations, and I do not propose to discuss that aspect of it.
The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), suggested at the opening of his speech, that we should not allow the representatives of the Central People's

Government of China to take their seat on the Security Council so long as they were engaged in aggression against Tibet. Here, again, I have tried to make the position of His Majesty's Government clear from this Despatch Box during Question Time. It is a very straightforward point of view which we take. It is that the Central Government of China today is the Government of China in effective control of the country, and, as long as it is so, it is the Government which has our recognition as the effective Government of China.
We deplore the action which the Chinese Government has taken, and the recognition of the Government is in no way approbation of what that Government is doing. All that it is, is the recognition of a fact. The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the fact that the Charter of the United Nations provides that there shall be representatives of China on the Security Council and in the United Nations. It is a procedural matter as to who, at the present time, should represent China. We take the view that the Government which is effective should be represented in the United Nations at the present time. Our view has not yet won a majority. Whatever action the Chinese Government are taking at the present time, it does not alter our view in that respect.

Mr. Blackburn: While entirely accepting that, will the Under-Secretary say that the Government view, that the present Government is the effective Government of China, does not imply any suzerainty over Tibet, of which it is not the effective Government?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member will allow me to reply seriatim, rather than that I should get my answers mixed up, he will get a better reply. We still hope to establish full diplomatic relations with the Chinese, because we think thereby we shall be able the better to settle the outstanding differences between us, and the problems that concern us at the present time.
As I have stated, we deplore the action China has taken. Tibet was prepared to negotiate with China, and it was while the Tibetan representatives were actually on their way to Pekin, that the Chinese took the aggressive action they did against this autonomous country. As the hon.


Member said, this action was taken without provocation and while peaceful negotiations were in progress. I think that the action taken by the Chinese is inexcusable and unforgivable.
In this connection, I should like to remove some misunderstanding which has arisen regarding our granting of visas to the Tibetan delegation which was on its way to China. We have been accused of delaying their passage to China to conduct the negotiations, as they wished to pass through Hong Kong. Unfortunately, in the first place the Tibetans asked for visitors' visas to enable them to conduct their negotiations in Hong Kong. In the circumstances, we were not prepared to permit the negotiations to be carried on in Hong Kong itself. If there had not been misunderstanding and they had asked in the first place for transit visas, they would have been granted to them.
I should like to clear up the point the hon. Member raised regarding our relationship with Tibet and our attitude towards her relationship with China. In the first place, our treaty rights and obligations were, of course, taken over by India when India gained her independence, and India has assumed all the liabilities, as it were, which we previously held. We informed Tibet at the time that we were maintaining our friendly interest in Tibetan autonomy; but we do not happen to have any representative there, because there is no necessity, as far as our relations with Tibet are concerned, to have representatives there at the present time. That goes not affect our attitude in any way towards that country.
We have recognised that China does have suzerainty over Tibet. We have taken that attitude for a considerable time, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous. This suzerainty has been quite nominal for a considerable time, and there has been no active interference from China as far as we are aware. It dates back to 1911, since when Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence within this framework of Chinese suzerainty. The independence of Tibet has not yet been lost. That fact must be kept in mind. It is tragic that she is being attacked, but she still remains autonomous and de facto independent.
Whether we continue to recognise the suzerainty of China or not, it in no way

justifies the Chinese invasion of Tibet. But this present circumstance must make us look at this position again, and at this stage we are not in a position to say whether or not our legal attitude towards the country is affected by this. We are not prepared to commit ourselves in that particular. Certainly the circumstances have changed, and this is a matter which we have to take into account. Further than that I am afraid that I cannot go at the present time.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield), has also pointed out, Tibet is also an inaccessible country. It is a romantic country. It is cut off from India, Pakistan and Nepal by the great Himalayas, and that makes it impossible in our view that she should be used as a base for aggression. Chinese alleged fears in this respect are, of course, quite absurd. As it has been pointed out, particularly by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, the Tibetans are a most peaceful and pacific people. Tibet is one of the great centres of the Buddhist faith. They are remote from the world spiritually as well as geographically. I think we could refer to Tibet as Asia's ivory tower. Here are these people who prefer to contemplate, as it were, the eternal truths rather than the hurly-burly of 20th century ideologies.

Mr. Blackburn: Very sensible too.

Mr. Davies: There is a great deal to be said for that attitude in this world torn with international tension. We all think that it is tragic that these people cannot be left alone to pursue their devotions and their ancient way of life. We think that the Chinese should go home and leave the Tibetans to carry on their own unique and contemplative way of life. How can one possibly credit that this religious community living in its ivory tower on the crest of the world could possibly resort to provocation or to non-peaceful methods? It is sad to contemplate that the Chinese, with the culture and wisdom of centuries, should now disturb this peaceful haven of yesterday.
Having said that, I think it will be clear to the House that we deplore the attitude which China has taken towards Tibet at the present time, and we can say that it causes us to look at our attitude towards


China's relations with Tibet and, of course, to consider what action should be taken, not only in that respect but more immediately and more particularly in respect of the United Nations.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should rest assured that this matter is under the urgent consideration of His Majesty's Government in full consultation with those members of the Commonwealth who are concerned, and that we regret that the present international tension, which is unfortunately so great, should be increased by this unprovoked aggression of China against

Tibet. We regret that the more so because at the present time we are endeavouring to bring China as an equal partner into the deliberations of the United Nations for the purpose of removing that tension and of restoring international peace. We still hope that the fact that a delegation is on its way to Lake Success may result in better counsels prevailing and some of this international tension being removed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.